To Cleo Abram
Re: Your piece on Indian Point
I live 3 miles from Indian Point and have studied the reactors for their last 25 years of operation. I have worked diligently with others to close the reactors. It was not our protests that led to the closing. It was economics.
Indian Point closed because it was no longer profitable enough for Entergy, owner of the plant. Entergy approached the Governor for a deal. The plant could not get a discharge permit because of an adverse ruling by the Bureau of Coastal Management. It could not get the permit because of the damage it did to the Hudson River ecosystem and the fact that we already had plenty of generation. Riverkeeper was involved because they had legal cases pending. Entergy agreed to pay money for a community fund and other things. Riverkeeper agreed to drop their legal cases. The closing agreement is posted on the website Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition.
The closing of Indian Point has long been anticipated by the New York Independent Service Operator, the guardians of our grid.. They would not have permitted the plant to close if it endangered our grid. A plan was put in place 12 years ago to improve the grid and to be prepared for the possible closing of Indian Point. The plan included a lot of transmission improvements and the construction of two new gas plants.
This was before Climate Change was being talked about much. The plan worked: we have plenty of generators and plenty of electricity. Between 2012 and 2018 Entergy lost its contracts to both Con Ed and the New York Power Authority. Both found that they could buy cheaper electricity elsewhere.
As a result, NYC has used no energy from Indian Point for the last three years. The subways still run, Broadway still lights up, planes still fly and all the schools and public buildings that NYPA supplies are doing quite well. Con Ed has had equipment problems but we have never had rolling blackouts as a result of a lack of power.
Off shore wind is coming in two years and rooftop solar is dramatically expanding. The Governor just approved the extension cord from Canada, CHPE, for more NYC electricity. Many argue that it was not needed in the City’s electricity mix, especially since big hydro is not emissions free.
This piece like most other pro-nuclear dissertations never even mentions the long lasting high level radioactive waste or where it will end up. We have no national policy. Communities that have hosted the reactor when it was profitable just want it gone. The industry is focusing on short term Centralized Interim Storage in the South West, especially New Mexico, where it is courting small, poor rural towns to no avail. They don’t want radioactive garbage from New York or anywhere else. The Governor has signed a letter against it as have numerous other elected officials. A lengthy court battle is bound to ensue. Ask yourself if it is ethical that we force it on them. How democratic would that be?
Your piece is simplistic in that it looks at none of these issues and closely follows the industry line while trotting out clips from RiverKeeper as strawmen to be easily demolished by David Roberts. Poor investigative journalism or perhaps a pay off to the nuclear industry?
I have extensive documentation to support everything I have mentioned and would be happy to share it with you, should you be interested.
Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition
Greetings All —
This is from Vox, posted on YouTube Oct. 1, 2021. It has nearly 800,000 views. >5,000 comments.
Anyone weighing in? Contacting the reporter (who says she wants to coe other topics)?
Good luck, be well,