668
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RatBin@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

I may not like nuclear, but if we want to decarbonise we need some more of it. Maybe before phasing out older and unsafe plants, we can start to build a new one in its place? I don't know this is not my field

[-] Zink@programming.dev 6 points 6 months ago

Yeah, on one hand nuclear energy is very safe, runs 24/7, and doesn’t belch greenhouse gases and poisons into the air. But on the other hand, it’s expensive, takes a long time to build, and many people are irrationally afraid of it.

Unfortunately, I think the real-world decisions are going to be dictated 99% by economics. But that can turn back into a good thing as green/renewable energy gets cheaper and cheaper.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

The cheaper renewable energy gets the less economic sense a nuclear power plant makes. If you design a multi-billion-dollar plant for an expected electricity price and that price drops in half before the plant is completed now it won't make a profit for twice as long.

[-] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago

For sure. If renewables are already significantly cheaper, and that’s because the cost has been falling and falling, how much cheaper will they be in another decade?

For nuclear, maybe the only hope is if SMRs ever take off and benefit from some economies of scale. If you can just order a handful of modular reactors from the factory and be selling electricity within a year, that changes the whole dynamic.

Unfortunately I think the latest I read about it is that SMRs are currently more expensive per watt than the traditional nuclear plants, and they’re focusing on remote areas and industrial heat and stuff like that. If that’s correct, we might need a solar-like rapidly dropping price for them to compete for mainstream grid power use.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

and many people are irrationally afraid of it.

I wish we had some place where all the anti-nuclear, flat earthers, theists, anti-GMO, vaxxers, etc. could live and pray in peace....far away from the rest of us.

this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024
668 points (92.4% liked)

News

23024 readers
3253 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS