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

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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    193·
    8 months ago

    Because it was leaking radioactive matter into the river upstream of one of the most densely populated areas in this hemisphere…

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      151·
      8 months ago

      Considering all releases to the environment from the plant, including the Hudson River, for 2010 Entergy calculated an annual dose of about 0.2 millirem whole body and 0.7 millirem to the critical organ. This compares to a normal average yearly dose per person of 620 millirem from background radiation and other sources such as medical tests.

      As far as I can see that’s not a big deal. Just sounds scary right?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        102·
        8 months ago

        It assumes a normal distribution spread out over an equal area. Which isn’t really something we should be assuming.

        But yeah. 0.7 millirem is the equivalent of eating 70 bananas.

        So if that was the most anyone got, it’s not a big deal.

        But we shouldn’t be assuming that.

        It was under federal regulations, but this is American industry we’re talking about. “Within regulations” doesn’t always mean “safe”.

        • Lmaydev@programming.dev
          64·
          8 months ago

          There are no drinking water sources that are affected, so the dose to the public would be from eating fish and shellfish from the Hudson River.

          So it’s also only if you eat sea food from there.

          It does sound like a lot of fuss over nothing tbh.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            43·
            8 months ago

            Mate, why keep asking questions?

            If you want to learn more, try reading something more than a single article.

            Like, nuclear engineering school sucked a lot, and was a while ago for me. You’re wanting to ask a teeny tiny question, wait for me to respond, re-read the same article, then ask a follow up.

            This is the absolute least efficient way for you to learn things. Especially nuclear exposure and all the ramifications.

            Like, it would be different if you had a simple question or two that you asked in one comment for someone to help you understand.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        8 months ago

        This article mentions the leak, but not amounts.

        To get you a source I’d just be googling it and grabbing the first thing I saw.

        I did have the wiki open already

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center#Safety

        It gives more details and the sources it links to likely gives amounts for each incident.

        To clarify a little, the part where primary got to generators would have also discharged to the river. But there was also other major shit going wrong apparently over the years