New York’s Greenhouse Gaffe, and How to Manage Existing Nukes

New York closed down the Indian Point nuclear plant before having in place sufficient clean energy replacement resources, thus forcing an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Bad form.
Since my own state of Michigan saw a similar closure, of Palisades Nuclear plant, in recent years, (for the record, the plant was closed after the operator could not find another interested party to buy and continue operating it, and repair costs for worn seals on control rods were looming) it’s worth clarifying on this issue.
Nuclear plants exist, they are contributors of significant fractions of grid power, but many are aging. Older plants may have increased safety concerns or increased maintenance costs.
At Palisades, for instance, the state government has appropriated 120 million so far for a new operator to revamp and restart the facility, in addition to supporting an additional billion plus loan from the federal government.

Guardian:

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.

“From a climate change point of view it’s been a real step backwards and made it harder for New York City to decarbonize its electricity supply than it could’ve been,” said Ben Furnas, a climate and energy policy expert at Cornell University. “This has been a cautionary tale that has left New York in a really challenging spot.”

–

In addition to restarting the existing plant, Holtec plans to develop two small modular reactors at the site, doubling the current power production.
Concerns remain about nuclear waste stored in casks at the site, and other sites like this around the Great Lakes.

My take – I think whatever deficiencies there might be in the built-but-not used waste storage facility in the Nevada desert – casks stored in that location seem like a better idea than on the shores of 20 percent of the world’s unfrozen fresh water.
Anti-nuclear folks need to get more strategic in navigating this emergent situation.

Key point: While there are some scenarios that decarbonize the energy system without resorting to nuclear, there is no decarbonization scenario that does not include a very large build out of solar, wind, and battery storage.

Rather than get too involved in a nuclear discussion, I prefer to devote my energy to speed the siting of solar and wind energy, which is available now, is clean, cheap, goes up quickly (once permitted) and, along with storage, and perhaps a contribution from rapidly evolving options like Virtual power plants, and deep rock enhanced Geothermal, could simply overwhelm and outcompete nuclear plants, whether small, modular, large, old or new, in the future.