![\"Fitzpatrick](\"http:\/\/enformable.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/Fitzpatrick-Nuclear-Power-Plant.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe New York State Public Service Commission\u2014in the face of strong opposition\u2014this week approved a $7.6 billion bail-out of aging nuclear power plants in upstate New York which their owners have said are uneconomic to run without government support.<\/p>\n
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo\u2014who appoints the members of the PSC\u2014has called for the continued operation of the nuclear plants in order to, he says, save jobs at them. The bail-out would be part of a \u201cClean Energy Standard\u201d advanced by Cuomo. Under it, 50 percent of electricity used in New York by 2030 would come from \u201cclean and renewable energy sources\u201d\u2014with nuclear power considered clean and renewable.<\/p>\n
\u201cNuclear energy is neither clean nor renewable,\u201d testified Pauline Salotti<\/a>, vice chair of the Green Party of Suffolk County, Long Island at a recent hearing on the plan.<\/p>\n \u201cWithout these subsidies, nuclear plants cannot compete with renewable energy and will close. But under the guise of \u2018clean energy,\u2019 the nuclear industry is about to get its hands on our money in order to save its own profits, at the expense of public health and safety,\u201d declared a statement by Jessica Azulay<\/a>, program director of Alliance for a Green Economy, based in upstate Syracuse with a chapter in New York City. Moreover, she emphasized, \u201cEvery dollar spent on nuclear subsidies is a dollar out of the pocket of New York\u2019s electricity consumers\u2014residents, businesses and municipalities\u201d that should \u201cinstead\u201d go towards backing \u201cenergy efficiency, renewable energy and a transition to a clean energy economy.\u201d<\/p>\n The \u201cClean Energy Standard\u201d earmarks twice as much money for the nuclear power subsidy than it does for renewable energy sources such as solar and wind.<\/p>\n Its claim is that nuclear power is comparable because nuclear plants don\u2019t emit carbon or greenhouse gasses\u2014the key nuclear industry argument for nuclear plants nationally and worldwide these days because of climate change. What the industry does not mention, however, is that the \u201cnuclear cycle\u201d or \u201cnuclear chain\u201d\u2014the full nuclear system\u2014is a major contributor to carbon emissions. Numerous statements sent to the New York PSC on the plan pointed to this.<\/p>\n \u201cNuclear is NOT emission-free!\u201d Manna Jo Greene, environmental director of the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, wrote the PSC<\/a>. The claim of nuclear power having \u2018zero-emission attributes\u2019 ignores emissions generated in mining, milling, enriching, transporting and storing nuclear fuel.\u201d Further, \u201cNew York no longer needs nuclear power in its energy portfolio, now or in the future. Ten years ago the transition to a renewable energy economy was still a future possibility. Today it is well underway.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNuclear power is not carbon-free,\u201d wrote Michel Lee<\/a>, head of the Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy based in Scarsdale. \u201cIf one stage,\u201d reactors operation itself, \u201cproduces minimal carbon\u2026every other stage produces prodigious amounts.\u201d Thus the nuclear \u201cindustry is a big climate change polluter\u2026Nuclear power is actually a chain of highly energy-intensive industrial processes which\u2014combined\u2014consume large amounts of fossil fuels and generate potent warming gasses. These include: uranium mining, milling enrichment, fuel fabrication, transport\u201d and her list went on. \u201cThe State of New York and its energy officials have a genuine opportunity to alter the course of history. You have the chance to help direct America and the world towards a more secure and prosperous future\u2026With vision and resolve, our state can be at the vanguard of a new global energy era.\u201d<\/p>\n In opposing the New York nuclear subsidy, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the Atmosphere\/Energy Program at Stanford University, wrote in an op-ed<\/a> in Albany Times Union, the newspaper in the state\u2019s capitol, he was \u201cshocked\u201d by the PSC\u2019s \u201cproposal that the lion\u2019s share of the Clean Energy Standard funding would be a nuclear bail-out.\u201d He said \u201callowing the upstate nuclear plants to close now and replace them with equal energy output\u201d from offshore wind and solar power \u201cwould be cheaper and would create more jobs.\u201d The closure of the upstate plants \u201cwould jeopardize fewer than 2,000 jobs\u201d while a \u201cpeer-reviewed study\u201d he has done \u201cabout converting New York State to 100 percent clean, renewable energy \u2013which is entirely possible now\u2014would create a net of approximately 82,000 good, long-term jobs.\u201d<\/p>\n The upstate nuclear power plants to be bailed-out under the plan would be FitzPatrick, Nine Mile Point 1 and 2 and Ginna. The money would come over a 12-year period through a surcharge on electric bills paid by residential and industrial customers in New York State.<\/p>\n Reported Tim Knauss<\/a> of the Post-Standard of Syracuse: \u201cIndustry watchers say New York would be the first state to establish nuclear subsidies based on environmental attributes, a benefit typically reserved for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. The \u2018zero emission credits\u2019 would be paid to nuclear plants based on a calculation of the economic value of avoiding greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.\u201d Cuomo \u201cdirected the PSC to create subsides for upstate reactors,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n Reuters has reported<\/a> that the nuclear \u201cindustry hopes that if New York succeeds, it could pressure other states to adopt similar subsides\u201d for nuclear plants. The headline of the Reuters story: \u201cNew York could show the way to rescue U.S. nuclear plants.\u201d<\/p>\n The two Indian Point nuclear power plants 26 miles north of New York City are not now included in the plan but it \u201cleaves the door open to subsidies\u201d for them, says Azulay of Alliance for a Green Economy. This would mean \u201cthe costs [of the bail-out] will rise to over $10 billion.\u201d<\/p>\n Cuomo has called for a shutdown of the Indian Point plants in the densely populated southern portion of the state, although boosting the continued operation of the nuclear plants in less populated upstate. \u201cNuclear has a role,\u201dhe declared at a press conference<\/a> last month. \u201cUnless we\u2019re willing to go back to candles, which would be uncomfortable and inconvenient, we need energy generation.\u201d<\/p>\n Still, the consequences of a Fukushima or Chernobyl-level accidents at the upstate plants could have major impacts. In a 1982 report, \u201cCRAC-2,\u201d<\/a> done at Sandia National Laboratories for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the consequences of a meltdown with breach of containment at every nuclear power plant in the United States were estimated. These included these in upstate New York. The analysis projected \u201cearly fatalities,\u201d \u201cearly injuries,\u201d \u201ccancer deaths\u201d and \u201cscaled costs\u201d covering \u201clost wages, relocation expenses, decontamination costs, lost property, and interdiction costs for property and farmland\u201d (in 1980 dollars). The projections for the upstate plants: for FitzPatrick (located in Scriba): 1,000 \u201cearly fatalities,\u201d 16,000 \u201cearly injuries,\u201d 17,000 \u201ccancer deaths\u201d and $103 billion in \u201cscaled costs.\u201d\u00a0 For Nine Mile Point 1 (also in Scriba) the figures were:1,400; 26,000, 20,000 and $66 billion. For Nine Mile Point 2: 1,400, 26,000, 20,000 and $134 billion. For Ginna (in Ontario, N.Y): 2,000, 28,000, 14,000 and $63 billion.<\/p>\n