A nuclear plant's closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up

[hunter]

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.

--more--

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/nuclear-plant-closure-carbon-emissions-new-york

This is the reality. Building more wind turbines and solar panels will not solve the problem and there are no magical energy storage technologies just over the horizon, "by 2030," or ever.

There is more than enough gas in the ground to destroy what's left of the natural world as we know it. It seems we are hell bent on extracting it and burning it as people claiming to be "green" look the other way because the economic viability of their wind and solar follies depend on it.

[2naSalit]

1. So I have to wonder...

Why we, collectively, insist on creating and using more and more energy using gadgets? It seems that what we have is never enough and there is always something new that we MUST transition to as the standard, each of which uses more energy than the things they replace.

And don't get me started on the crypto economy and its unbelievable use of energy.

None of it makes any more sense than all the years we've been sorting out our garbage for recycling only to find that it was all a ruse.

[marble falls]

2. Exactly. The issue isn't Nuclear vs any other form of electrical generation: it's about over consumer overuse ...

... and a lack of utilization of non petroleum and non nuclear alternative sources that are ready to use.

[hunter]

4. No, it is not.

There are eight billion humans on this planet and this population is supported by high density energy resources almost entirely derived from fossil fuels.

Even if all eight billion of us adopt hybrid gas-wind-solar energy systems, and the more affluent among us reduce our participation in the "consumer" economy, the world is not saved.

The only demonstrated way of halting human population growth, aside from Mother Nature's usual programs of widespread suffering and death, or the propensity of humans to engage in war, seems to be the economic and political empowerment of women. This often begins with the basics -- things like flush toilets, modern water and sewage treatment systems, kitchen appliances, industrialized agriculture, and yes, education and employment outside the home. These modern necessities all require high density energy resources.

The only energy resource capable of displacing fossil fuels entirely is nuclear power.

I find it very doubtful that non-nuclear fully "renewable" energy systems could support even half the world's current population.

Who should suffer and die to support our renewable energy goals?

[marble falls]

5. Yes it is.

[SarahD]

3. Yes. Crypto mining.

I was stunned when I saw the numbers on the power consumed by a crypto mining facility. And they're getting bigger because they run increasingly complex calculations that require more computing power. It's an infinite spiral. What we really need to do is shut down this "industry" that produces nothing.