Shuttering of New York facility raises awkward climate crisis questions as gas – not renewables – fills gap in power generation

When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.

Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.

Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.

    • @Pilferjinx
      link
      99 months ago

      You sure can indeed. But running with one leg isn’t as efficient as two.

      • DerGottesknecht
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        Its a wrong analogy. We have limited resources and investment in renewables are faster and more efficient. Every dollar spent on nuclear doesn’t go in renewables, so its better to focus the effort.

      • @kaffiene
        link
        English
        09 months ago

        Nor with a stick up your ass

        • @Pilferjinx
          link
          19 months ago

          Are you saying that building nuclear power plants is analogous to having a stick in one’s ass?

          • @kaffiene
            link
            English
            09 months ago

            No, I just thought that was as glib response to a complex issue as the one you provided (and along with the original post)

            • @Pilferjinx
              link
              19 months ago

              Hey man, thanks for the insightful and intelligent response then.

    • @Rakonat
      link
      English
      69 months ago

      Nuclear is is the most stable and carbon neutral form of energy production to date. Not to mention the safest. And that’s not even considering EOL disposal and recycling figures that always get brought up with Nuclear but no one ever seems to talk about for Solar and Wind when their components reach end of their service life and have basically no plan for how to recycle or dispose of them in any way that isn’t a landfill.

          • @kaffiene
            link
            English
            29 months ago

            The claim was that renewables don’t have a recycling story. I gave references showing that’s not true and the comments that these efforts are early days and ought to improve with scale. Your glib response adds nothing

      • @gmtom
        link
        -49 months ago

        Nuclear is in no way carbon neutral?

        • @Rakonat
          link
          English
          7
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and over the course of its life-cycle, nuclear produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions per unit of electricity as wind, and one-third of the emissions per unit of electricity when compared with solar.

          https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-essentials/how-can-nuclear-combat-climate-change.aspx

          Per kilowatt produced, wind power is the only thing that competes and that assumes operating in areas ideal for wind turbines to function. If you’re trying to make land use efficient (because the less land we need to use, the more can be converted back to wilderness to sustain fragile ecosystems) and able to serve high density population areas, nuclear is the only viable option as a solid baseline.