ment Authority to focus on the regions that would be impacted by the closure of Indian Point.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

There are two general options to consider in replacing Indian Point: reducing demand and increasing supply. As noted above, demand is increasing, but the growth rate can be controlled to some extent. Many efforts already are under way to increase the efficiency of use of electricity or to reduce demand during peaks when reliability concerns are highest. Chapter 2 discusses how those efforts could be expanded if it were necessary to compensate for the loss of Indian Point. It also discusses distributed generation and how that could affect load growth and electricity reliability.

Supply options, discussed in Chapter 3, include new generating units and transmission lines that can import power from underutilized generating plants in upstate New York and beyond. In recent years, almost all new generating plants have been fueled by natural gas, but those supplies are becoming strained. Modifying the bulk power system can be complicated, and many factors must be considered. In particular, reactive power has a large effect on transmission capability. The reactive power supplied by Indian Point would also have to be replaced if its units are closed.

Chapter 4 discusses institutional factors and various impacts that might result from the replacement of Indian Point with the options discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. Most new generating plants and transmission lines would be built by private companies, which could face daunting obstacles of regulation and financing. New facilities also would create a set of environmental impacts different from those created by Indian Point.

Chapter 5 analyzes several scenarios to evaluate the impact of closing Indian Point and replacing it with these other options. The scenarios with compensatory actions to replace Indian Point are to be viewed as representative of the actions that could be taken, not as a recommended path. Other combinations of options might prove less expensive or advantageous from other perspectives. Nor do these scenarios include all of the costs that could be involved, such as buying Indian Point in order to close it, or disposing of the spent fuel now being stored onsite.

A series of appendixes follow. Appendixes D through G, which give additional details on the options considered and the committee’s analyses, are reproduced on the CD-ROM that contains the full report but are not included in the printed report owing to space limitations.

The committee’s findings and conclusions are discussed in the Summary and Findings that precedes this chapter. This report does not include recommendations as to whether Indian Point should be closed.

REFERENCES

Hu, W. 2002. “Post-9/11, opposition to Indian Point plant grows.” New York Times, April 24.

—. 2003. “Judge orders faster review of cooling unit at Indian Point.” New York Times, April 10.

Komanoff, C. 2002. Securing Power Through Energy Conservation and Efficiency in New York: Profiting from California’s Experience. Available at http://www.riverkeeper.org. Accessed April 2006.

Levitan and Associates. 2005. Indian Point Retirement Options, Replacement Generation, Decommissioning/Spent Fuel Issues, and Local Economic/Rate Impacts. Boston: Levitan.

Lombardi, K.S. 2002. “Indian Point and the Big If.” New York Times, March 31.

Lyman, E. 2004. Chernobyl on the Hudson? The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. Washington, D.C.: Union of Concerned Scientists.

NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2006. U.S. Nuclear Power Power Plant Capacity, Capacity Factor and Generation. Available at http:// www.nei.org/documents/U.S.%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plant%20 Capacity%20Capacity%20Factor%20and%20Generation.pdf. Accessed April 2006.

NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NYISO (New York Independent System Operator). 2005. Comprehensive Reliability Planning Process (CRPP) and Reliability Needs Assessment. Albany, N.Y. December 2005.

Purdy, M. 2003. “Our towns: Gospel of Armageddon finds fertile ground near Indian Point.” New York Times, January 26.

Risinit, M. 2005. “Unlike Westchester, upstate Oswego welcomes nuclear power.” The Journal News. Available at http://www.thejournalnews. com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050626/NEWS02/506260355/-1/ spider/. Accessed June 26.

Riverkeeper. 2006. Available at http://www.riverkeeper.org. Accessed March 2006.

Schlissel, D., and B. Biewald. 2002. The Impact of Retiring Indian Point on Electric System Reliability. Cambridge, Mass.: Synapse Energy Economics.

van Suntum, L.R. 2005. “The cost of nuclear power” (Letter to the Editor). New York Times, May 23.

Wald, M. 1982. “Protests grow on Indian Point.” New York Times, August 15.

—. 2005a. “County seeks deal on Indian Point, perhaps in vain.” New York Times, June 19.

—. 2005b. “Study finds vulnerabilities in pools of spent nuclear fuel.” New York Times, April 7.

Westchester County. N.D. “Emergency Planning for Indian Point.” Available at http://www.westchestergov.com/indianpoint/. Accessed March 2006.

—. 2003. “Spano and Kaplowitz Announce Next Step in Effort to Replace Nuclear Energy at Indian Point.” Available at http://www. westchestergov.com/currentnews/2003pr/IndianPointRFP.htm. Accessed April 2006.

Witt, J.L. 2003. “Review of Emergency Preparedness at Indian Point and Millstone” (Draft). Washington, D.C.: James Lee Witt Associates.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement