In today’s world we are faced with two major problems when it comes to energy. The first problem is that the energy we are using creates a great deal of greenhouse gases and this is having dangerous effects on the planet. The need to develop and put into use different forms of green energy has never been greater than it is now. The second problem that we face is the need to meet a growing dependance on energy. As the population rises there comes a demand for more energy and that demand has to be met. Energy is a vital force in daily life and anyone who has lost power for a few days can appreciate just how greatly they rely on energy. So here we are at this junction. The need to stop using dirty energy and switch to green energy crosses paths with a rising demand for energy production. This would be alright is green technology was more developed, but right now there is doubt as to the current energy-output of green technology and it will take a few years, or more, for the technology to replace dirtier energy sources such as coal.
Now the question is what is being done about this? Well thankfully green technology is on the rise and will one day reach its potential to replace all dirty energy sources, but until this transition is a reality there is still a growing demand for energy. Here is where nuclear energy comes in. Nuclear energy is greener that coal and other similar dirty energies, producing no carbon waste, and it has the capability to provide energy to thousands of people. It’s green, it meets demand, so why is there still a problem? Well people are frightened. People have always been weary of such a powerful and destructive force despite its clear benefits. It’s this fear of nuclear energy that is the subject of this post. The Indian Point nuclear power plant is being threatened by people who want it shut down, and personally I don’t think they know what they’re asking for. Looking at the pros and cons of shutting the plant down, I consider the loss of the plant to greater outweigh the risks.
Indian Point
The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant is located in New York state on the Hudson River, a few miles north of New York City. The state is one of the largest states in its nuclear capacity and generation. Consisting of only 13% of the state’s electricity capacity, nuclear energy provides a hefty 30% of the state’s electricity. New York has always been a high energy consuming state, especially due to the energy demand of NYC, and the energy provided by the nuclear plant reduces the state’s reliance on importing energy. 
Currently operating two reactors, IP2 and IP3, the plant has been in operation since 1962 with the two operational reactors running since 1974 and 1976. The reason the debate over this power plant as increased dramatically recently is due to the fact that the plant is due for relicensing, its permits expiring for IP2 and IP3 in 2013 and 2015. The plant has long been protested, but this opportunity to shut it down has driven the debate into a political, social, and economic frenzy.
The Reason Behind the Fear
The relicensing of Indian Point could not come at a better time for the protesters. The Fukushima Disaster has created a world-wide caution of nuclear energy and the US has certainly fallen victim to this paranoia. The protesting groups, among them being the group Riverkeeper, are using the Fukushima Nuclear Disasters as a basis for their recent arguments, claiming that if the same thing were to happen to Indian Point, the effects would be devastating. While it is true that should the plant fall victim to the same crisis, that is a massive earthquake and a large tsunami, then the reaching effects of the radioactivity would effect the lives of close to 20 million people. However, one must look past the fear-mongering and understand that such predictions are based largely on the “what-if it happened here” and not on the “what happens here”. 
It would be an extremely long shot in the dark for Indian Point to be damaged by a tsunami as severely as Fukushima was. It was the damage to the back up generators and curtail electrical equipment done by the tsunami that put Fukushima in a critical condition because they had no power no working equipment. I consider it safe to say that the tsunami risk factor is not significant enough to even argue about. As for the earthquake risk, Indian Point has been accused of having the highest risk of earthquake damage in the country, the risk being 1 in 10,000 for IP3 and 1 in 30,303 for IP2. Once again however, one must look at the conditions of the area. The east coast is not at risk for large earthquakes so it’s only natural that other nuclear plants, such as the ones in California where earthquake risk is a major concern, would have a lower risk factor. Should the plant pass the standards for the region in earthquake resistance, then there is not reason to fear it being low in comparison to others. 
Another recent event that has stirred fear-based arguments for the shut down of Indian Point is the 9/11 terrorist attack. The protestor groups are claiming that the risk of a terrorist attack is great enough to shut down the facility. “Terrorism” however is a very charged word these days and needs little evidence to back it up once it’s thrown out there. If one only looks at the situation they can see that this risk is a very small and insignificant one. Just in its size, the plant is only a fraction of the size of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To hit a target that small with a plane would be extremely difficult and with a large room for error. However, lets say the terrorist do target the reactor and actually hit it. The reactor, just like every other reactor, is built to withstand the assault of a massive impact such as an airplane crash. The plant successfully passed its examination in this area so its defenses are all in order. Just because the word “terrorist” is thrown into the argument does’t mean the argument is supported by fact. This is simply more fear-mongering.
There are other fears such as the lack of a successfully evacuation route for the 50 mile radius surrounding the nuclear plant, but these concerns are not unique to the plant remaining in operation. Rush hour is a hazard every day while driving yet nothing is done to improve the roads for any kind of terrorist attack in NYC or disasters. This argument is not enough to specifically demand the closure of a nuclear plant 35 miles away from the city. Then there is always the safety concerns, heightened by the fact that it’s an old plant. However, Entergy, the company that owns the plant, has put in a significant amount of money into the refurbishing and updating of the plant, so should the plant pass its inspection there is little need for concerns. The plant has had its incidents over the years but nothing significant enough to risk the closure of the plant, only small fines. Lastly, there is the complaint of the radioactive waste, but this is the same for all nuclear plants and it’s an issue being dealt with as best as possible. It’s a risk worth taking for the benefits of the energy the plant provides.
The “Pros” and Cons
So far I have been focusing on dismantling the argument provided by the protestors. The so-called Pros of shutting down the plant such as a prevention of Fukushima in the US and a terrorist attack are not stable enough arguments to argue against the Cons of shutting the plant down. As listed to my left, it’s demonstrated that the plant provides significant financial input for the economy when it comes to jobs, charities, and taxes. To shut the plant down will cost New York billions of dollars over a time span of 15 years and all the financial advantages will be lost. Aside from the financial impact, one must also consider the energy impact on loosing such a significant source of power for the NYC and Westchester County. The result of such a loss will no doubt lead to an increase in electrical prices as well as rolling black-outs due to the power shortage. The protestors claim that new green technology can replace the plant, such as wind and solar energy, but those technologies are not nearly as developed as they need to be to become a main supplier of energy for such an energy-demanding area as NYC. Maybe one day, yes, but not in the near future. The Cons of financial suffering and energy shortage largely outweigh the so-called Pros, and it for this reason that I argue that shutting down the Indian Point Nuclear power plant will cause more damage that benefits.
Sources
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/19/141489883/fight-over-nuclear-plant-draws-n-y-political-heavies
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/indianpoint/
http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-polluters/indian-point/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center