Governor Andrew Cuomo won't give up on his obsessive quest
An unstoppable force has crashed into an immovable barrier in New York. Mayor Michael Bloomberg (right) in late June went public with blistering criticism that rivals the city's summer heat that can fry eggs on the sidewalk.
He told anyone in the news media who cared to listen, "If you close Indian Point today, we'd have enormous blackouts." The twin nuclear reactors supply about 25% of the electricity used in the metro area.
Mayor Bloomberg added as far as he can see "there is no alternative to the amount of energy we get from Indian Point." He added that closing the reactors when their licenses expire "would be detrimental to New York."
Yet, a week later an aide to Gov. Andrew Cumo told the New York Times that the Mayor's views, and a report by Charles Rivers Associates that supports them, would not deter plans to seek closure of the reactors a in 2013 and 2015.
Not a partisan political battle
While Bloomberg is a republican and Cuomo is a democrat, this is not a partisan fight. What it is about is a mayor who looks at the reality of the situation and a governor who's near obsessive focus on closing the reactors defies rational explanation.
In mid-June executives from Entergy, the publically-traded utility that owns and operates Indian Point, met with aides to Gov. Cumo (left). They thought that the long-sought sit down represented an opportunity to make peace with the state's highest elected officials. Instead, they were shocked right down to their socks by an assertion, and in no uncertain terms, that the state was determined to find any method that would work to close the plants.
Mayor Bloomberg's statements telling Gov. Cuomo to back off aren't just so much political hot air. A report by Charles River Associates, leaked to the New York Times in the first week of July, concludes there is no easy way to replace the more than 2,000 MW of power provided by the reactors at least in the short term.
The report points out New York does not have the transmission lines to provide replacement power and efforts to build new grid infrastructure is likely to generate as much political opposition as the reactors themselves.
Less juice and paying more for what’s left
Ed Kee, a consultant for NERA Associates, commented to the New York Times July 13.
"The answer is pretty simple: [electricity] prices will be higher and reliability will be lower."
In round numbers, if Indian Point is closed, wholesale electricity prices could rise by 12%. Nuclear energy is the lowest cost source of electricity in New York. Eliminating the reactors defaults to higher priced coal and natural gas based electricity generation. It will also lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions.
Wind turbines, which are touted by organization like Riverkeeper, which supports Cuomo's drive to close the reactors, cannot deliver their power to New York city from their upstate locations because the grid is already at capacity.
The result will be more power failures, and not just brownouts, but total blackouts. Industry experts told the New York Times the path to building new power grids could take more than five years.
Mayor Bloomberg hasn't said what he'll do next to defend the interests of his city against the hare brained power politics coming out of Albany.
One thing is sure. A man with the demonstrated determination to make a billion dollars in the private sector and to then run the nation's largest city isn't likely to let Gov. Cumo pull the plug on its electricity supply.
Video
Ultimately, this comes down to an issue of political will and determination. So here's a video that shows what "determination" looks like when playing Sgt. Early's Dream, a traditional Irish reel.
# # #
5 comments:
Interesting. Unlike many states the Governor of New York is probably not the most important politician in the state, that is the Mayor of NYC.
Andy wants to play Michael to his father’s Don Corleone, who proudly pulled the plug on Shoreham, leading to Long Island having the highest electrical rates in the country.
Part of the blame goes to the Republicans, who were unable or unwilling to field a viable opponent to Cuomo in 2010. If Giuliani or Bloomberg had run, we might have a different situation on our hands.
“hare brained power politics” – hey, watch your language!
Well I see that Atomikrabbit, who seems superbly informed about things nuclear, is blog hopping again.
Listen, I am offering a bag of carrot sticks if you will consider writing a guest blog post or two here.
You can keep your rabbit ears on, but would need to also identify with your real name.
Dan, thank you for those kind words (I assume they are kind, since I didn’t see any sarcasm tags!)
I am afraid, however, that I must decline your generous offer if it involves unmasking my true identity, for I, like all superheroes endowed with extraordinary powers by exposure to the hormetic photons of gamma radiation, must conceal my mundane identity from evildoers in order to remain effective.
I ask bloggers like you, Rod, and a legion of others throughout Christendom and beyond, to keep up the good fight with logic, wisdom, and insight. I will continue to pop up out of my maze-like warren to respond to the fetid odor of anti droppings, and contribute as the need requires.
Best wishes, and thanks for all the carrots,
Atomikrabbit
Dan - thank you for pointing out that the battle is not really a partisan one determined by political party affiliation. By my analysis, the real issue is the desire of natural gas suppliers to sell more gas at ever higher prices driven by a shift in the balance between supply and demand.
They never quite explain what is going to happen as we get closer and closer to the day when even fracking will not squeeze any more hydrocarbons out of the drying sponge that is the readily accessible part of the earth's crust.
The often touted "100 - year" supply of natural gas in the US has a lot of optimistic assumptions built in. First of all, it is only rounded up to 100 years - 2170 trillion cubic feet at the end of 2010 divided by 23 trillion cubic feet per year leaves just 94 years.
Secondly, the 2170 number provided by the Potential Gas Committee report includes all proven, probable, possible and speculative resources, without any analysis of the cost of extraction or moving them to a market. Many of the basins counted have no current pipelines and many of the basins are not large enough for economic recovery of the investment to build the infrastructure with far higher prices.
Finally, all bets are off with regard to longevity if we increase the rate of burning up the precious raw material.
However, greedy people do not think much about tomorrow or much about the people that they hurt by forcibly shutting down low cost facilities to allow higher priced fuels to compete.
This battle over Indian Point will be interesting because there are a lot of very wealthy and media savvy people on both sides. I hope that the nuclear energy supporters recognize the value of exposing the underlying motives of the opposition. We have to take back the moral high ground from the anti's to show that we are working in the interest of the majority to provide clean, abundant, affordable, reliable power.
BTW - In case your readers are interested in the motives of a group like Riverkeepers, founded and led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., here is a link to a video clip of him explaining his support for natural gas.
http://atomicinsights.com/2010/11/power-politics-rfk-jr-explains-how-pressure-from-activists-to-enforce-restrictions-on-coal-benefits-natural-gas.html
Rod Adams, Publisher, Atomic Insights
Post a Comment