NIMBY

 Not in my backyard.

I heard this a lot as a kid. It applied to landfills, homeless shelters, and abortion clinics. Oh, and nuclear reactors. Especially nuclear reactors.

But that was back in the 80s. Back when we didn't even wear helmets. Nuclear energy must have changed since then, right? I mean, right?

*crickets*

To the Honorable Governor of New York

Governor Kathy Hochul

To Representatives:

Assemblyman Ken Blankenbush (District 117)

Senator Daniel Stec (District 45)

Assemblyman Scott Gray (District 116)

Dear Madam and Sirs:

I have a real problem with the talk of nuclear reactors becoming a mainstay of this state's energy plan. I know that there have been some educational forums held near my area, but these seemed very pro-nuclear with very few of the risks outlined. Many comments I heard from attendees was that they were still confused and unsure whether this was a good prospect for our area. 

Northern NY is already a powerhouse. The Raquette River is one of the most damned rivers in this state producing 181 megawatts of power. Northern NY is prime real estate for wind farms with the largest in the State at Maple Ridge Wind Farms in Lewis County producing 321 megawatts of power.

New York was supposed to be heading toward renewable energy sources and wind, solar, and hydropower are these sources. Nuclear energy is not a renewable source. It may not be carbon producing but the waste products are just as nasty and I would say, more dangerous to the health of humans.

Nuclear energy at its simplest seems unchanged since the 80's. It still requires uranium. It still requires a huge amount of water for cooling tanks. It still produces radioactive waste which must be contained. The United States STILL has no repository for radioactive waste that is still being produced by the many reactors we currently have. Radioactive waste is stored on the same property as the reactors that produced it. It goes nowhere. Radioactive waste is sunk into cooling tanks for 5 years before being removed and even after this time, they are still Hot. The steel canisters are then buried in concrete under the reactors or close by. Northern New York is not immune to earthquakes, and I wonder how safe these bunkers are made. Some of these canisters have been known to leak. Bury them deep enough and I suppose that won't really be an issue but if we decided that fracking wasn't a great idea, how is drilling down deep into bedrock to slip in canisters of radioactive waste any better?

New York demands energy. We rely too much on out-of-state sources for our energy. I understand this. But why sink money into infrastructure that produces no more energy than solar or wind farms? Why not put the money into these renewable sources? The 3 nuclear reactors in NY generate 3.3 Gigawatts of power per year. All the solar farms in NY generate 6 gigawatts of power per year. The wind farms produce 2.1 gigawatts per year. Hydropower generates 8.8 gigawatts per year. Why invest in a non-renewable, dangerous energy source when renewable power produces just as much energy? Is it not more prudent to spend the money on systems that do not require a finite source to produce said energy? Can't we invest in new technologies that will make these renewable forms of energy production more efficient?

Other countries do use nuclear power, but they also have national underground repositories for the waste and we don't. Until the US builds the Yucca Mountain complex to store this radioactive waste, nuclear energy is no more viable than fossil fuels and natural gas.

Can this radioactive waste be recycled? Sure. But it doesn't eliminate the waste, only reduces it. It does allow for less uranium to be mined but it also harvests plutonium. The hardest and most difficult part of building a nuclear weapon is to source the raw materials, namely plutonium. Is NY State prepared to invest in the security required to protect this dangerous element? Will any corporation be willing to invest the money to properly supervise the handling of this material without some sort of compensation from the State?

Overall, these questions have not been answered by the State. Nuclear energy is the most complex solution to this problem that can be suggested. Renewable energy sources are far simpler, have already been implemented across the state (with more wind turbines offshore to come on-line), and have fewer environmental impacts than new nuclear reactors. 

The three nuclear plants we already have in this state is more than sufficient. These reactors should be shut down but because energy is so essential at this time, it is not practical. However, I truly believe that they have outlived their usefulness.

New York State is a proud leader in renewable energies. Our state has a mandate to increase renewable power. Is NYPA dragging its feet? How about some state refunds or tax breaks for homeowners who add solar panels to homes? How about incentives for individuals to transition to renewable power sources OFF-GRID? If residents produce their own power, less strain is placed on the overall grid which means more power is available for larger industries and manufacturing.

Whatever needs to happen to meet our growing energy appetite, building more nuclear reactors, no matter how evolved they have become, are not the answer.

I will never support new nuclear energy unless a firm plan is in place for a national repository for radioactive material. With the world the way it is, even thinking about having plutonium more readily available is irresponsible.

I am open to hearing the opposition to this. I am willing to hear why you think nuclear power seems to be the answer here. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter and to your hard work of public service. I have always been proud of our state's accomplishments and that is in large part due to the integrity of our elected officials. 

-Wy

Blah, blah, blah. Will they listen?