SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The controversial Indian Point nuclear plant near New York will close in 2021, a casualty of low energy prices and relentless criticism by environmentalists, the power company announced Monday.
Under an agreement with New York State, Entergy plans to shut down one of the two operating units at Indian Point by April 30, 2020, and the second unit will close a year after that.
Entergy attributed the decision to close the decades-old plant to shifting energy economics. Among the changes, power prices fell as much as 45 percent due to natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation in New York and Pennsylvania, part of the American shale boom.
"Key considerations in our decision to shut down Indian Point ahead of schedule include sustained low current and projected wholesale energy prices that have reduced revenues, as well as increased operating costs," said Bill Mohl, president of Entergy wholesale commodities.
Entergy said it would look for other opportunities for the 1,000 workers employed at Indian Point.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and environmentalists applauded the news since the plant, located within 30 miles of New York, has long been a concern due to safety problems and worries that an accident at the aging facility could affect some 20 million people.
Lower energy prices cited by the article have not been reflected in customer electricity bills. Indian Point supplies 30% of New York's power, so if the post-Indian point power supply drops by the same amount the high prices New Yorkers currently pay per kwh will climb even higher.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:09PM
These partnerships exist because they invest capital up front with the goal of earning more back over time. Considering the massive investment required by utilities, many of them are regulated industries to protect that investment. If the public wanted to fund these works projects up front they could have, but chose not to do so. Thus these protected industries exist.
It is not a bad thing these partnerships seek a profit, as it creates an incentive to do things efficiently. Look how Eastern Europe did under a profitless system, where no innovation occurred because there was no benefit to doing so.
A nuclear plant near a major city is not a great idea, and these things are past their designed life. It's time for them to go for that alone. What replaces it is another discussion.
As for government employees, they should never have unions because it creates an unjustified and even unconstitutionally privileged class that is unfireable, unreassignable, and at times leaches off the public by doing little work for decent pay and a pension. If that problem was removed, and unions banned from political donations, I cannot see a reason why the Right would not be in favor of investing in more projects. In a country with perpetual underemployment having these jobs be like winning the lottery is unconscionable.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by meustrus on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:53PM
I've worked for the government (as a contractor). I have never seen a more cynical, depressed, beaten down group of people than those with whom I worked. On top of that, their pay is well below market rates. But hey, at least they know that if they don't do anything illegal, they can basically sit on their ass all day and steadily gain their seniority benefits without fear of firing.
I guess sitting on your ass appeals to you; it didn't to me. Your idea of "winning the lottery" involves a lot more ennui than I'm comfortable with.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday January 12 2017, @12:26AM
That's not true, for a lot of reasons:
1. Civil service laws and similar clauses in union contracts were put in place so that a government employees' job did not depend on their political loyalties. Imagine a world in which you can get fired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics because you reported numbers that made the president look bad, and you'll see why there's a good reason to protect them. Or, to use a more local example, I got to witness a high school history teacher being protected by civil service laws and a union contract because they didn't want him teaching kids about the anti-Vietnam War Movement.
2. Government employees are definitely re-assignable, and that is sometimes used to send a message to somebody they are trying to get rid of. For example, one acquaintance of mine got in trouble working at the US Mint as a metallurgist. The reason was that he knew the methods his boss was making him use to test the purity of gold were faulty (his boss was quite proud of the fact that the lab had never rejected a shipment of gold for impurities, which should have been a red flag on its own), and very publicly said as much. So while they waited to go through all the hearings and such, they reassigned my buddy from doing work as a metallurgist to doing work bagging coins on the assembly line.
3. Even with those protections, it is still possible to fire a public employee if there's a good reason for it. The usual rule is: incompetence, malfeasance, and/or insubordination. The person doing the firing typically has to convince a board consisting of both their fellow unionized employees and some managers. Sometimes they do, as in the case of a chemistry teacher I encountered who couldn't do basic algebra.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.