It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cuomo announces shut down of Indian Point nuclear power plant

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   
With its aging infrastructure and safety record called into question and after several safety incidents over the past few years, the governor of New York has decided that beleaguered Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants has had a good enough run and will cease operations in 2021.


Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced Monday that the Indian Point nuclear power facility will be shut down by 2021.

The 2,000 megawatt facility, which is located 25 miles north of New York City along the Hudson River, will see its Unit 2 reactor shut down in April 2020 followed by the shut down of Unit 3 the following year.

The announcement follows an agreement with the plant’s owner, Entergy Corp., to shut down operations amid safety concerns for the surrounding communities. The governor’s release regarding the announcement noted that there have been 40 safety issues, including fires and faulty equipment at the plant, since 2012.

Gov. Cuomo said the closure will not affect the power grid or electricity bills, noting that replacements to the facility’s power output will come online before its closure. Additionally, all workers at the plant will be offered employment at other facilities.

Watertown Daily News, Jan. 9, 2017 - Cuomo announces shut down of Indian Point nuclear power plant.

I for one welcome the news. Nuclear plants built using 1950’s design plans (test reactors), have mostly been scrapped (Gen 1 reactors, Wikipedia, see – Classification by generation). Current reactors are Gen 2 and are aging rapidly. Indian Point is a case in point. Seeing them shutdown is a huge sigh of relief as previous thread’s concerns point out (see below).

Currently, only Russia has a Gen IV plant up and running putting power on the grid commercially. That is their “fast breeder reactor” that placed electricity on the grid late last year.

ATS threads: Fukushima in New York? This Nuclear Plant Has Regulators Nervous (2016).
Breaking News Smoke Rising at Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (2015).
Indian Pt Nuclear Facility (25mi to NYC) the next Fukushima? (2015).
Russia's fast neutron reactor enters commercial operation (disclaimer, my own thread, Gen IV reactor information, 2016).

Too soon? Not soon enough? Welcome news? Government contradicting itself again? Somebody think of the children??!!

What says you ATS?
edit on 9-1-2017 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: grammar nazi




posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
It's in my back yard, I'm pro nuclear power but the placement on a fault line and upstream from arguably the most important city in the world doesn't make a lot of sense. We even had UFOs screwing with it in the 80s, yup I saw them myself, read about it in a book called Night Siege.



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Its already had several close calls, one during Sandy (?). If the water levels had risen a little higher they would have interrupted the flow of coolant during the power outage after the shutdown.

Thats a melt down. Whew, got out of that one.

So nice of him to 'announce' closure in a 'few years', riiight...

The problem with storm surges is they don't threaten the plant from a scram perspective but do threaten the back up cooling apparatus to keep the core cool after the shutdown, the same way Fukushima reactors were threatened after the Japan Tsunami.

Without power theres no cooling, without back up, theres meltdown.

climatecentral



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: WUNK22

I am not “anti-“ nuclear power but there are better designs out there that should be used when constructing new plants. That is what gets me, why do an old ‘50’s tech plant when you can do better? The answer always seems to be “money” which is the dumbest answer to that question (imho).

On a fault line, water source for major city (or spawning grounds for salmon, like Hanford in Washington State), are all good reasons to stop. The one that gets me is in California on a cliff above the ocean (I forget the name offhand). I just shake my head and start the stop watch.

(For those don’t know what we are talking about, this is one of the better reads on ATS!) Glad you saw some of the activity! So envious!


ATS link: Hudson Valley, Indian Point, Boomerang UFOs & the Stormville Flyers.

 


a reply to: intrptr

Once a reactor starts to melt down it basically never stops. If the core is breached and you have the real deal China Symdrom… well, kiss the eastern seaboard good-bye.

The presidential candidate race mentioned Indian Pt. and I forgot who, but some eejit said it fits perfectly into the power safety of ‘Merica! (very lose paraphrase, but not that far off). Again, *SMH* at the thinking of politicians who say anything to get elected. And lord help us all if they think of actually following through!

Fuku was an intense situation. They had the back-up generators in the basement which actually did get flooded out. Which destroyed the power cable distribution. So faced with the impossible, they ran and grabbed several spools of 660Kv cables and ran them over ground (!!!) to the stricken plant. I think they kept one reactor from blowing by doing so. The chief plant operator was the one who commanded the desperate ploy and would die the next year (of cancer, probably from staying at his post).

If I were in charge, every nuke plant would get a redox flow battery backup that would keep power to coolant tanks to at the very least perform the emergency shutdown procedure + 4 hours. Probably more like +10 hours.

So yeah, I do not want anybody to face such overwhelming odds. I would suck at the Kobayashi Maru test, huh?


edit on 9-1-2017 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: grammar nazi

edit on 9-1-2017 by TEOTWAWKIAIFF because: clarity



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
How the announcement was made.


Mr. Cuomo announced on Monday that the state had reached an agreement with the plant’s operator, Entergy, to shut it down by April 2021. He minimized the effects the closure would have on the power grid, electric bills, workers and the regional economy.

In his State of the State address in Lower Manhattan, Mr. Cuomo characterized the deal as a hard bargain he had driven to rid the region of a “ticking time bomb” less than 30 miles from Midtown. He said the state would bear no costs in the shutdown or decommissioning of the plant’s two operating nuclear reactors.

“I have personally been trying to close it down for 15 years,” said Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat. He added that the proposed closing “eliminates a major risk, provides welcome relief, and New Yorkers can sleep a little better.”

NYT.com - Cuomo Confirms Deal to Close Indian Point Nuclear Plant.

Wow! 15 years? That is a while. The article continues and mentioned the energy replacement and states that renewables will not fill the void (at 2,000 Mw I should think not).

State of the State is kind of a big announcement. Both for doing the right thing and letting New Yorkers know that a drastic change is coming. May not be welcome news for everybody... but even Entergy said the were working with NY to get this done as it refocuses on its utility business in other regions (same source).



posted on Jan, 9 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


If I were in charge, every nuke plant would get a redox flow battery backup that would keep power to coolant tanks to at the very least perform the emergency shutdown procedure + 4 hours. Probably more like +10 hours.

The battery back ups at Fuku were 24 hours. Redundant safety systems are a trade off between cost to prevent a disaster in worst case scenarios and the cost of normal operation. The reasoning is the worst case probably won't happen so they don't need to be prepared for it.

But then the compromises set in during construction... Well, we'll build the plant a few feet closer to the beach (lower elevation), make the seawall a little lower (Fuku) and reduce back up systems capacity.

After all they never thought at the time that flood levels from a hurricane or Tsunami would ever reach that high. Or that primary off site power would be interrupted that long, that generators would be flooded, that battery back ups wouldn't last till off site power was restored.

They did divert disaster during Sandy, barely. In both cases, at Fuku and during sandy, it was rising flood waters, one from tsunami and one from hurricane storm surge. Reactors don't know the difference.



posted on Jan, 10 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Let's all pray to the almighty bottom line!

As somebody who has done business continuity/disaster recovery stuff, you do not place all your eggs in one basket. In Fuku, placing back up generators in basement... oh my! The seawall reduction also blows my mind. I am not sure it would have stopped the tsunami waters but might have mitigated the amount of water reaching the plant (the coast dropped, what? five feet?, more?, below the sea wall).

Distributed everything is the way to go. Plans A/B/C/D? and "oh s#!" and one hopes to never hit plan C ever.

I'm glad that Sandy did not wreck havoc on nuclear power plants! And that Oyster Creek was basically shutdown for refueling. Now with all the weather disruption happening... man, that is a frightening scenario. Storm, power outage, and a meltdown happening but nobody knows about it because they do not have any power.

Thanks for the nightmares!!

PS - Great article! Thanks!




top topics



 
4

log in

join