The New York Times reports on some of the complexities associated with closing the Indian Point nuclear power plants. But what is missing from the story? Patrick McGeehan’s Dirtier Air and Higher Costs May Follow Indian Point Closing:
Shutting down the Indian Point nuclear power plant would lead to significantly dirtier air and higher electric bills for New York City residents, according to a report commissioned by the city that is circulating among state officials in Albany.
To read a further excerpt – and a discussion of other possible responses to closing Indian Point – see the rest of this post after the jump.
The report, a copy of which was obtained on Tuesday by The New York Times, concludes that, for the next several years, there probably will not be enough new power generated to replace the 2,000 megawatts produced by the two reactors at Indian Point. That shortfall could leave the city with a less reliable supply of electricity and a greater risk of brownouts, the report finds.
Those findings buttress the stated views of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has said that Indian Point probably cannot be shut down “for the next four or five years.” That position could leave him at odds with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who has told executives of Indian Point’s owner, Entergy, that he was determined to close the plant, which stands along the Hudson River about 35 miles north of Midtown.
The licenses for the plant’s reactors are scheduled for renewal in 2013 and 2015. Together, the reactors produce as much as 25 percent of the power consumed in Consolidated Edison’s service area, which includes New York City and Westchester County.
Asked for a response to the report, Josh Vlasto, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, indicated that it would not deter the governor. He reiterated a statement from last month that said that “the governor’s longstanding position with respect to closing Indian Point has been clear, and this administration intends to follow through with implementing that policy.”
Three projects are under way that could replace some of the power that would be lost if Indian Point closed. But even after the completion of all three — power plants in Astoria, Queens, and Bayonne, N.J., and a transmission cable from New Jersey to Manhattan — there would not be enough power to meet the standards for reliability required in the city, the report says.
When demand for electricity rises in the summer of 2016, the first peak period after the reactors could be retired, “given the current prospects for new capacity in New York, resource adequacy will fall below acceptable levels at that point,” it says.
Last week, the mayor addressed that potential problem in a radio interview. “If you want to shut down Indian Point, you probably cannot do it for four or five years anyways because we don’t have alternative power sources,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Now, there are plants being built and power lines bringing power from up north into the city, but it’s four or five years before they get here.”
The commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, Caswell F. Holloway, said the report was not intended to bolster an argument against closing Indian Point, but to explore the implications of a shutdown. It was produced by Charles River Associates, a research firm in Cambridge, Mass.
What’s missing here is what variables were considered. For instance,
Conservation. “green roofs” and white or reflective roofs have both been shown to reduce the need for air-conditioning in hot weather. Conservation in peak demand periods would reduce the maximum required production capacity.
Decentralized Production. The scenarios considered seem to have focused on substituting three presumably coal-fired plants for two nuclear plants. But what if the closing of the Indian Point reactors were accompanied by the addition of coal-fired plants and as much renewable, and locally sited, electricity required. A solar array on every roof, railroad right-of-way, parking lot and highway medium might each only produce a fractional amount of energy – but in the aggregate might make up a substantial amount of the electricity New York would have to create.
More efficient technology. Attaching motion-detectors to interior lights in commercial and residential spaces pays back within a few years – and reduces consumption without much effort. Substituting LEDs, where the technology is now adequate (like traffic lights, and brake lights on vehicles, both now common uses of LEDs, usually in a reflective housing), and abandoning “vampire” devices (for instance, a television set which, when “off,” is still using small amounts of electricity, or a microwave, which, when “off,” still uses electricity to power its clock/timer) are examples of incremental efficiencies.