Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Once a Defender of Indian Point Plant, the State Pushes to Close It

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 08:55 AM
Original message
Once a Defender of Indian Point Plant, the State Pushes to Close It
Source: New York Times

Now the struggle is playing out again. This time, however, New York State, which sold Indian Point 3 to Entergy Nuclear for $600 million in 2000, has joined Westchester County and other opponents in trying to persuade the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to grant 20-year license extensions for the two operating reactors — Unit 3 and Unit 2, which Entergy bought from Consolidated Edison in 2001.

New York is the first state to formally oppose the relicensing of a nuclear power plant, and officials say there are two main reasons for taking that position: On Sept. 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11, which slammed into the north tower of the World Trade Center, and United Airlines Flight 175, which hit the south tower, flew along the Hudson River and crossed it just north of Indian Point.

“New Yorkers know all too well that the threat of terrorism is real,” Mylan L. Denerstein, the state’s executive deputy attorney general for social justice, said in an opening statement at a hearing convened on March 10 by a three-judge panel that will make a recommendation to the full regulatory agency.

Those who support relicensing the plants say that the risk of an attack must be weighed against the more likely possibility of higher energy prices, electricity shortages and increased air pollution if the plant were to close.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/nyregion/18indian.html?ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Technically, under that logic, all skyscrapers in NYC
should be dismantled because they could be hit by terrorism. Taking that sort of logic to its ultimate conclusion, and all.

It'd just be cheaper and easier to armor the thing like a tank. Anything that's actually radioactive is contained in a relatively small volume. No point in taking it offline until you have something else to substitute in its place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. technically, skyscrapers aren't full of radiation
so that argument's a bit weak
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heywood J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. The argument was made that it should be closed
because it could be targeted for terrorism, not because it contained radiation.

Technically, skyscrapers contain asbestos, PCBs, etc. Just as bad, ask the WTC rescue workers and the people who had to do cleanup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. of course we don't have the technology to "armor" a nuclear power plant aga. a commercial airliner
this threat has been studied for years, ever since extortionists threatened to fly a southern airways commercial airliner into a nuclear plant in the south unless they were paid $3 million dollars (big money in those days, which were i believe, around 1982)

nuclear power plants can be hardened aga. small private planes but not aga. commercial airliners, so it's a real security leak and it isn't just new yorkers who are threatened

i'm always amazed at how quickly people are to post and speak up who have no knowledge of what they're talking about, the nuclear regulatory agency itself has admitted that the containment buildings can't be made strong enough to protect aga. a commercial jetliner being crashed into them

much discussion of this in public, after 911, as well as after the earlier incident, so it isn't like some secret knowledge you couldn't be expected to know before you posted that it was cheap and easy to armor a nuclear power plant "like a tank"

i would respectfully suggest that if people don't know what they're posting about, don't make shit up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Well, skyscrapers with nuclear power plants in them, I guess . . ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. just as a sidebar, I think I remember reading that Entergy's profit last year . . .
from the Indian Point plant alone was over $1 billion . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davepc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. I grew up in the shadow of Indian Point, and I think closining it is stupuid
Test the air quality around a coal plant, and a nuclear plant then tell me which one is "safer".

France generates over 70% of their energy from nuclear power is a net EXPORTER of energy to the rest of the EU.

Nuclear power is not a bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Best-case scenario, they'll replace it with a mix of wind and natural gas
But even then, the increased CO2 emissions of the natural gas plants will contribute to global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. I remember reading that about the "terrorists" passing up the chance to hit the nuclear plant.
.
.
.

Makes me even more convinced of the MIHOP thing.

If the AlCIAda group from Saudi Arabia had concentrated their "act" on that nuke plant,

Combined with the 3-mile Island incident

Nuclear power stations would be not on the agenda

Sadly, now they are

People forget
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. it isn't impossible that united 93 was heading for three mile island
it was only minutes away when it crashed

the terrorists were going for famous places, the twin towers, the pentagon, perhaps 3mi was a more logical and famous target than indian point if you're a foreigner

the claim that ua93 was headed for the white house (it wasn't even close) has always seemed pretty obviously a claim made to protect the nuclear powerful industry to me, it's far more logical that ua 93 was aimed exactly where it was going
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKthatsIT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. It's too close to the coast and it sits on top of Arapaho Fault
And it old.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. in that case, it makes me wonder why
the terrorists didn't initially consider the plant as a target instead...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC