A Eulogy for Indian Point
Can the U.S. really achieve zero emissions through non-nuclear renewables only? Are you sure? We can't afford to get this wrong.
Welcome to EarthWatch, the environmental news and opinion newsletter for people who think you should never turn your back on Mother Earth—written by me, Jerry Bowles, an ancient scribbler who has been around the Sun a few times and doesn’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Ideas, tips, and feedback: jerry.bowles@gmail.com
The obituary begins conventionally enough with four of journalism’s five basic imperatives—who, what, where and when. Conspicuously missing is the why.
The Indian Point Energy Center (Indian Point) permanently stopped generating electricity on April 30, 2021, when it retired its last operating nuclear reactor, Unit 3, earlier than originally planned. The Indian Point nuclear power plant began operations in 1962 and produced over 565 terawatthours (TWh) of electricity in the 59 years it was open. The Unit 3 retirement removes almost 1,040 megawatts (MW) of nuclear generating capacity from New York State, leaving about 3,200 MW of remaining nuclear capacity at three plants in upstate New York.
That’s 565 terawatthours (TWh) of carbon-free electricity. Safe, reliable carbon-free electricity. To meet the lost capacity that is certain to leave many New York City dwellers in the dark without subways or air conditioning at least once or twice this summer, the state has added three “temporary” natural gas-fired power plants over the past three years to help replace the reliable carbon-free electric supply lost by closing Indian Point, “Natural” gas is a nice way of saying methane so GHG emissions will also go through the roof.
And, for what? As the pro-nuclear group Climate Coalition, which describes itself as supporting an “all of the above” approach to addressing climate and all means of reducing emissions, frames the plant’s closing:
Wind and solar (utility-scale and “behind the meter”) in New York were responsible for about 6,600 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity in 2019. However, Indian Point generated 16,695 GWh. This means that from a climate standpoint, shutting down just half of Indian Point wiped out more carbon-free electricity than is annually produced by every wind turbine and solar panel in the state.
New York’s 2019 Clean Energy Standard (CES) requires utilities and other retail electricity suppliers in the state to obtain 100 percent of the electricity they sell from carbon-free sources by 2040, which means the state and the new “natural” gas producers involved now have nineteen years to fix a problem that was already fixed. New York’s CES recognizes nuclear power plants as zero emission resources.
Opposition to Indian Point has been there almost from the beginning but it really picked up steam during the 1990’s when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the anti-vaccination nut job, founded and took over leadership of an “environmental” organization called Riverkeeper, whose mission is to protect the Hudson River. The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), which also bears the Kennedy fingerprints, was also deeply involved in the action.
Entergy, Indian Point’s owner-operator, had been seeking a 20-year license renewal for both reactor units since 2007, but voluntarily entered into a negotiated agreement with New York State and Riverkeeper in 2017 that ended a ten-year legal proceeding about whether the expired operating licenses for Indian Point’s two reactors should be renewed. Through the 2017 agreement, Entergy agreed to close Unit 2 on April 30, 2020, and to close Unit 3 on April 30, 2021.
Although Indian Point had a few potentially serious accidents over the years, the primary argument for closing it down is its proximity to New York City—”35 miles from Times Square,’ as the scary fundraising letters put it—and the possibility of an evacuation nightmare. It’s one of those Chicken Little only has to be right once arguments but with backing from Governor Andrew Cuomo, who has turned out to be an even bigger jerk than previously suspected, Indian Point’s fate was sealed.
The consequences of the closing for the communities and workers that the plant supported and ultimately for the environment are as likely to be catastrophic as they are to be positive. Robert Bryce, author of A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, warns in Forbes:
The premature closure of the nuclear plant is bad climate policy. The closure, which was announced by Gov. Andrew Cuomo in 2017, will increase reliance on natural gas-fired generators and in doing so increase the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. In 2013, when Michael Bloomberg was mayor of New York City, his administration estimated that closing Indian Point and replacing it with gas-fired generation will “increase New York City’s greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 15 percent.”
But the premature closure of the 2,069-megawatt nuclear plant is even worse land-use policy. Here’s why: replacing the 16 terawatt-hours of carbon-free electricity that is now being produced by the twin-reactor plant with wind turbines will require 1,300 times as much territory as what is now covered by Indian Point.
Nuclear is going through a rough patch at the moment with more reactors being permanently shut down than built. Permitting and building a reactor while fighting off law suits, community resistance, and construction costs means many years and millions of dollars between breaking ground and making a profit. Investors can make a better profit in other energy sources like gas and fast-growing renewables like solar and wind. Frankly, I suspect Entergy, which is changing directions, is happy to be rid of Indian Point.
I’m a journalist, not a scientist or investor, but it seems to me that shutting down safe and functioning nuclear plants like Indian Point while wind and solar and hydrogen and other renewables are still gaining traction is akin to a jockey pulling up a horse that is leading at the top of the home stretch and trotting over the victory circle before the race is over.
As for nuclear, we’re going to need every viable source we have. Maybe the problem is not the fuel itself but the way we’re using it. Smaller, cheaper, modular, pre-fab, maybe teamed up with hydrogen. That could get the nuclear industry back to competitive.
In any event, Riverkeeper and the NRDC are taking a victory lap. Kit Kennedy (yep, exactly what I’m thinking), the NRDC’s senior director, Climate & Clean Energy Program writes in a blog post and NYTimes letter:
There’s no question that Indian Point was sited in the wrong place some 50 years ago—a location where a severe accident would jeopardize the health of millions of people and where no large-scale evacuation plan would be remotely feasible. The closure of Indian Point this week ends this risky chapter. The retirement will happen on schedule with no red flags from reliability monitors at NYISO, and against the backdrop of accelerated climate and clean energy progress in New York State that was almost unimaginable when the debate over Indian Point began decades ago.
She assures us that “New York’s electricity supply will continue to be reliable after the closure of the plant.” As Jake once said to Lady Brett: “Isn’t it pretty to think so.”
You are reading a free version of EarthWatch. If you want to be sure to receive all updates and special alerts, as well as read, comment, and take part in the ongoing dialogue, you should subscribe. I’m an old guy living on a fixed income.
Dig Deeper
New York’s Indian Point nuclear power plant closes after 59 years of operation (EiA)
Setting the record straight on Indian Point (Climate Coalition)
New York Has 1,300 Reasons Not To Close Indian Point (Robert Bryce)
Indian Point Is Closing, but Clean Energy Is Here to Stay (NDRC/Kit Kennedy)