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.

  • Ooops@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    What kinda oil shill would be promoting fuckn nuclear

    Nuclear is incredibly expensive, uneconomic and for all countries starting only now would delay phasing out fossil fuels by decades of planning and construction. When they could start reducing fossil fuels and emmissions right now by building renewables and adding storage successively over years.

    So the actual answer is: all of them. They know fossil fuels don’t have a future, so they have long changed to delay tactics.

    • Traister101@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nuclear is very expensive to build it’s the cheapest to maintain. Even accounting for horrible disasters like Chernobyl it’s safer and less polluting. But yes, renewables are great! Most of our power where I live is from a dam. My grandpa had his house heated primarily via solar energy. They generated enough power through solar that they were able to sell it off to the energy dudes. When solar was bad they’d get power from the nearby wind turbines or the dam. All this stuff is great, it’s way better than coal but a single nuclear plant would out perform all of that energy generation and ultimately, cost less.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        it’s the cheapest to maintain.

        only if you dont count cost of salaries. Nuclear takes a lot of highly skilled people to run/maintain.