Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(36,196 posts)
Wed Jun 25, 2025, 07:00 PM Jun 25

The New York Governors Cuomo, Governor Hochul, and the Environment.

The worst environmental act of my life took place on Long Island, where I participated in agitation against the Shoreham Nuclear Plant, which was completed but never operated commercially.

Mario Cuomo, governor of New York at the time, put together a "deal" by which the reactor would be decommissioned before it ever operated.

The issue that led to its demise, driven home by moron journalists, was that Long Island could not be evacuated during a nuclear meltdown.

The irony for me was that Long Island couldn't be evacuated during the extreme weather event represented by Hurricane Sandy. I had family members by marriage, who, as the water filled their house on the South Shore, huddled in their attic while water came up through the floorboards, but happily stopped before drowning them all.

Later, then Governor Andrew Cuomo, recently defeated for the Democratic mayoral candidate for New York City, oversaw the shutdown of the Indian Point nuclear facility, increasing the carbon output on the PJM grid. After it was recognized, by some people, that the decision to shut Indian Point was a decision to kill people, given the effects of extreme global heating, there was talk of reopening Indian Point. Unfortunately the plant's decommissioning was too far along for this to be an option.

Now we have this, Governor Hochul's proposal on nuclear energy: Governor Hochul Directs New York Power Authority to Develop a Zero-Emission Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology Power Plant

Governor Kathy Hochul today directed the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to develop and construct a zero-emission advanced nuclear power plant in Upstate New York to support a reliable and affordable electric grid, while providing the necessary zero-emission electricity to achieve a clean energy economy. This builds on other opportunities announced in Governor Hochul’s 2025 State of the State to catalyze nuclear energy development in New York.

“As New York State electrifies its economy, deactivates aging fossil fuel power generation and continues to attract large manufacturers that create good-paying jobs, we must embrace an energy policy of abundance that centers on energy independence and supply chain security to ensure New York controls its energy future,” Governor Hochul said. “This is the second time during my administration that I am calling on the New York Power Authority to lead a critical energy initiative, and just as it is doing with the expedited buildout of renewable energy and transmission, it will now safely and rapidly deploy clean, reliable nuclear power for the benefit of all New Yorkers.”

As a result of economic growth and fossil fuel power plant retirements, New York needs new, clean electricity resources to meet growing power demand from new industrial development, building electrification and electric vehicles. The advanced nuclear plant will complement New York’s ongoing deployment of renewable energy by adding zero-emission baseload power, providing reliable and affordable clean energy to advance the State’s goal to achieve a clean energy economy.

NYPA, in coordination with the Department of Public Service (DPS), will seek to develop at least one new nuclear energy facility with a combined capacity of no less than one gigawatt of electricity, either alone or in partnership with private entities, to support the state's electric grid and the people and businesses that rely on it...


Better "way too late" than never.

A better outcome would have been for Shoreham to have operated its full life time, and for Indian Point to have continued operations, perhaps with refurbishment.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The New York Governors Cuomo, Governor Hochul, and the Environment. (Original Post) NNadir Jun 25 OP
How is a source of energy that produces radioactive waste safe or clean? CivicGrief Jun 25 #1
This rote objection is criminally insane. NNadir Jun 26 #2

CivicGrief

(191 posts)
1. How is a source of energy that produces radioactive waste safe or clean?
Wed Jun 25, 2025, 08:07 PM
Jun 25

How many barrels of radioactive waste are laying at the bottom of the sea?

NNadir

(36,196 posts)
2. This rote objection is criminally insane.
Thu Jun 26, 2025, 03:01 AM
Jun 26

Last edited Thu Jun 26, 2025, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)

I say "criminally" because whenever I hear it, I ask the person making it to show, that radioactive materials from fission in nuclear power plants accumulated in the 70 year history of commercial nuclear power has killed as many people as will die in the next 8 hours from fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution," which is about 6000 people. I then cite a Lancet article and some commentary from it.

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249). This study is a huge undertaking and the list of authors from around the world is rather long. These studies are always open sourced; and I invite people who want to carry on about Fukushima to open it and search the word "radiation." It appears once. Radon, a side product brought to the surface by fracking while we all wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana that did not come, is not here and won't come, appears however: Household radon, from the decay of natural uranium, which has been cycling through the environment ever since oxygen appeared in the Earth's atmosphere.

Here is what it says about air pollution deaths in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease Survey, if one is too busy to open it oneself because one is too busy carrying on about Fukushima:

The top five risks for attributable deaths for females were high SBP (5·25 million [95% UI 4·49–6·00] deaths, or 20·3% [17·5–22·9] of all female deaths in 2019), dietary risks (3·48 million [2·78–4·37] deaths, or 13·5% [10·8–16·7] of all female deaths in 2019), high FPG (3·09 million [2·40–3·98] deaths, or 11·9% [9·4–15·3] of all female deaths in 2019), air pollution (2·92 million [2·53–3·33] deaths or 11·3% [10·0–12·6] of all female deaths in 2019), and high BMI (2·54 million [1·68–3·56] deaths or 9·8% [6·5–13·7] of all female deaths in 2019). For males, the top five risks differed slightly. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths globally in males was tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 6·56 million (95% UI 6·02–7·10) deaths (21·4% [20·5–22·3] of all male deaths in 2019), followed by high SBP, which accounted for 5·60 million (4·90–6·29) deaths (18·2% [16·2–20·1] of all male deaths in 2019). The third largest Level 2 risk factor for attributable deaths among males in 2019 was dietary risks (4·47 million [3·65–5·45] deaths, or 14·6% [12·0–17·6] of all male deaths in 2019) followed by air pollution (ambient particulate matter and ambient ozone pollution, accounting for 3·75 million [3·31–4·24] deaths (12·2% [11·0–13·4] of all male deaths in 2019), and then high FPG (3·14 million [2·70–4·34] deaths, or 11·1% [8·9–14·1] of all male deaths in 2019).


Nuclear power does not need to be risk free to be vastly superior to everything else, including the 7 million people killed each year because there are fools running around claiming if anyone anywhere at any time dies from radiation, that would be worse.

I have written extensively here on the components of used nuclear fuel, including radioactive fission products and the higher actinides to show that these components are extremely valuable materials on which the future of humanity may well depend, since radiation can do things that nothing else can do, for example, break carbon-fluorine bonds.

Even if this were not true, even under the current conditions of fear and ignorance in which the components of used nuclear fuel are stored on site rather than put to important uses, nuclear energy saves lives.

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

It follows that antinuke cults kill people.

The history of antinukism is a crime against humanity to my mind. I have no use for its adherents, its promoters, and their tiresome dogmatic chants.

Got it?

No?

I couldn't care less. There is a sea change in attitudes about nuclear energy in these desperate times, and the seas rising because as a result of antinuke fear and ignorance is a reason for it.

It's way too little, way too late, but it's the best and only hope we have.

Have a nice day.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The New York Governors Cu...