an under-appreciated reason to not rank Andrew Cuomo is that he teamed up with RFK Jr. to shut down New York’s largest nuclear power plant, causing energy costs and carbon emissions to skyrocket
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Sorry. As a TMI evacuee with too many friends suffering ever since from the "accident" (greed) that "nobody died from" (lie, PA refused to keep or follow health records, but mom worked in the hospital and my godmother worked for the state police, things went silent). This saved lives.
2) it actually cost lives when you consider the impacts of pollution and carbon emissions from the natural gas plants that were built to to replace the energy
You know why I wont follow you? Becsuse you think you know and state it as fact. YOU dont know all. You dont know the suffering my friends and family have gone through for over 40 yrars. The ones that are still alive. You think nuclear plants dont pollute? Please.
Nuclear is about the cleanest form of energy generation we have. It’s far cleaner than burning fossil fuels, whose pollution gets dumped in our atmosphere.
Unless it makes you sick or dead. Media and the state of PA have kept this quiet since the accident. You can have your opinion. I have seen the damages up close. I was pro nuclear until March 1979 and I will never support fission.
Outcomes aside, RFK left Riverkeeper in 2017 and had largely been relegated to a symbolic role and fundraiser by the time Cuomo moved to close it. RFK is a scumbag that’s really spoiled the reps of well meaning environmentalists and activists at Riverkeeper - they’ve done a lot of good work in NY.
And to be clear I agree that the shutdown should’ve been phased out to better handle the necessary stopgap natural gas use… but Indian Point was an ancient design and only like 35 miles up river from Times Square w zero contingency evacuation plans for any emergency. Dumb all around!
As a kiwi, I’m definitely anti-nuclear. But to be fair, we have a lot of ability to generate much cleaner energy through wind and hydro so that might not work everywhere.
But nuclear is a bit of a latent scary nightmare 🫣
Why as a Kiwi are you definitely anti-nuclear? Most countries aren’t blessed with the renewable resources NZ has and yet the world needs to cut emissions rapidly. Can we afford to rule out a scalable and reliable form of low-carbon energy?
Massive political watershed moment when we lost membership with ANZUS because we didn’t want US nuclear boats in our harbours.
And yes as I explained, we are blessed in that way so I can’t speak for how other countries need to do things - maybe nuclear accidents are less of a risk…
I’m not arguing with you. And I’ve only been in Oz 2 months - I have no idea how things work here yet! This is why I said “as a kiwi”. My preference will always be renewables. That’s all.
Wind, solar, hydro all great options where that’s possible
Let's get our facts straight:
a) It was too close to NYC & there were real concerns re terrorism, natural disasters etc.
b) Low natural gas prices made it more cost-effective to generate electricity from natural gas vs nuclear power at Indian Point, impacting the plant's economic viability.
a) I lived closer to this plant, significantly closer, for 18 years. It was fine, and safer than fossil fuels. DHS simulated a jet crashing into it and the plane would bounce off
b) Natural gas exacerbates the climate crisis. In any case if the plant was unviable it can shut down on its own accord
The concrete domes were safe but they were storing spent fuel in cooling ponds that were literally just sitting in metal sheds. They’ve since moved all that fuel into casks (which are still on site). Entergy wasn’t exactly a great steward. If they wanted to keep it, NYS should’ve taken it over.
But yea agree the offset being supplied by dirty nat gas plants was poor planning. Now we’ve got a new transmission cable on the bottom of the Hudson bringing hydro down from Quebec which is supposed to cut the gas back down but I don’t think it’s online yet.
They’re on site in casks because we have no final WIPP or DGR for nuclear waste, I agree we should get on that but Harry Reid was a cutthroat bastard so there you go
I would have preferred the state to manage the site directly, my family still lives in Croton so that does keep me up but the casks are basically safe. They just suck for making the land unusable as long as they stay there
Andrew Cuomo resigned from
Gov. Due to sexual assault allegations and his puss poor handling of Nsg homes during COVID. There are dozens of reasons not to rank him
All good reasons to not rank him. IMO he showed his hand long ago with his dogged attacks on Indian Point. Every awful thing that I learned afterward just proved him worse and worse.
The tritium was a thing but it’s fair to say that it was a scare tactic to rile public support - tritium is not uranium. Not great but nowhere near as big a threat.
The company, Entergy, also sucked. It’s not like they had the public’s interest in mind. If it was state owned? Maybe worth defending.
And Cuomo only jumped on the cause at the very end after activists had battled for years. He’s an opportunist - his thing is cherry picking pet causes to endear libs (fracking ban, gay marriage) while mostly just being a corrupt conservative ghoul. Expect the same if he becomes mayor, hopefully not!
The tritium was well within limits set by federal regulators. Cuomo used it to scaremonger and to beat Entergy into submission. The plant was quite profitable, but too much political hassle when they could just burn shale gas somewhere.
You all have like 3 incidents you point to and the ONLY one you don’t exaggerate is Chernobyl. But none of you understand WHY Chernobyl was bad so you blame all nuclear.
Well damn, I am shocked and amazed to hear that you know what all of us do or do not understand. I do know what happened, and the information is out there. Still think nuclear is a bad idea, and presents unnecessary risks that solar and wind simply do not pose.
The disaster at Chernobyl is still ongoing, since the best they could do was cover it with a metal sarcophagus. It will continue to emit radiation for the next 24,000 years. Imagine that.
If you are invoking the Chernobyl reactor 4 when talking about Indian Point 1 or 2 you should be able to explain what the similar dangers are in how these facilities operated
I don't disagree that there was an unacceptable long-term risk at Indian Point, but the sequencing should have been, big build out of renewables then decommission. The incremental risk of running a few more years was low and could be mitigated further.
We've had decades to transition, but the big oil boys have done everything they could to obstruct the process. And have in fact succeeded. Now comes the endless patter about transition. Oh whatever will we do about climate change? Decades of talk, accompanied by decades of lies and quiet obstruction
That’s part of the problem. It once took hundreds of years for ideals to shift in small ways. But tech causes culture shifts overnight, now. The Me Too movement is one example.
This causes great division—culture shock—as half of our citizens are unable to process and adjust at this fast pace.
If COVID is any indication, it seems that some people have zero ability to deal with shock and change period. It seems counterintuitive to our animal roots. Maybe those people would all die off back when we were still feral.
Comments
2) it actually cost lives when you consider the impacts of pollution and carbon emissions from the natural gas plants that were built to to replace the energy
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
But nuclear is a bit of a latent scary nightmare 🫣
And yes as I explained, we are blessed in that way so I can’t speak for how other countries need to do things - maybe nuclear accidents are less of a risk…
In terms of safety, counting deaths per unit of electricity generated, nuclear is about as safe as it gets.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Wind, solar, hydro all great options where that’s possible
a) It was too close to NYC & there were real concerns re terrorism, natural disasters etc.
b) Low natural gas prices made it more cost-effective to generate electricity from natural gas vs nuclear power at Indian Point, impacting the plant's economic viability.
b) Natural gas exacerbates the climate crisis. In any case if the plant was unviable it can shut down on its own accord
Gov. Due to sexual assault allegations and his puss poor handling of Nsg homes during COVID. There are dozens of reasons not to rank him
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/nuclear-plant-closure-carbon-emissions-new-york
Don’t get me wrong, I hate RFK and Cuomo alike, but iirc there were real issues with Indian Point.
The company, Entergy, also sucked. It’s not like they had the public’s interest in mind. If it was state owned? Maybe worth defending.
They used the lack of knowledge for fearmongering.
And this all on purpose, forget about science and facts.
Riverkeeper benefitted from the gasplant deals as well.
Anti-nuclear groups are like anti-vaxxers.
Asking for 8 billion humans
This causes great division—culture shock—as half of our citizens are unable to process and adjust at this fast pace.
wasn't the best idea from 🇺🇸