Shuttering of New York facility raises awkward climate crisis questions as gas – not renewables – fills gap in power generation
The Grauniad is certainly laying it on thick here, referring to Indian Point as “deteriorating and unloved”.
Certainly, anti-nuclear campaigners (calling themselves “environmentalists”, or “peace activists”, or whatever else suited their purpose) spent decades cultivating public opinion that the plant was environmentally damaging to the Hudson River, and a danger to New York City. But, as should be well known by now, they themselves do not care whether their claims are true, and the press tends to repeat those claims uncritically far more often than it subjects them to critical examination.
An example of the shameless propaganda against Indian Point
As for how anyone could be surprised that fossil fuels took up the load when nuclear was taken out of the picture, we are at a loss. Renewables, thinly spread in space and time, are obviously a very poor match for the dense load of “the city that never sleeps” — but in any case, anti-nuclear has always meant pro-fossil, and pretty explicitly, too.
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. “From a climate change point of view it’s been a real step backwards and made it harder for New York City to decarbonize its electricity supply than it could’ve been,” said Ben Furnas, a climate and energy policy expert at Cornell University. “This has been a cautionary tale that has left New York in a really challenging spot.”
Gee, who’d’a thunk it?
The article also quotes Bill McKibben, who made his career by spreading bogus claims of health problems caused by Three Mile Island, and has since positioned himself as a “leading climate activist”.