Nuclear power is safe and efficient with minimal environmental impact. The French, who are not known for their technical prowess, generate more than 50% of their electricity needs with nuclear energy. Having a French firm who has experience building nucler power plants is smart. They employ a cookie cutter approach and have perfected one design. Historically, we have not done that in the USA, avoiding the principle of mass production that lowers costs. This sounds like a workable plan. But....

New York is replete with lawyers and anti-everything groups. Its population is shrinking. Jobs are leaving due to high taxes and crippling regulations. Nuclear energy costs more than other forms of energy. Who is going to buy the electricity?

I think you should all just do more with less because you won't have any other option.

Yes, we should conserve and yes we should develop renewable sources for electricity generation. For 24/7 reliable power the country needs to have large, efficient "baseload" power plants. The choices are coal and nuclear. The trade-offs are that we have lots of coal in the U.S., but it produces carbon emissions. Nuclear is a safe technology, but is expensive to build. Once built, though, the present reactors are cost competitive with other fuels (except hydro) and it is expected that newer reactors will be even more efficient to operate.
As to not having a national storage facility for the "spent" (used) nuclear fuel, that is true (that is a long story, including the all-out effort by Nevada's politicians to impede the project.) The hopeful sign is that the Department of Energy, which would build and operate the disposal facility, has submitted a construction license application to the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has the charter and the professional staff to thoroughly review the operational and long-term suitability and safety of the facility. Meanwhile, existing reactor owners can safely store the spent fuel on-site until DOE begins disposal operations, perhaps by 2020.

If New York needs more electricity over the next 50 years--despite the best efforts at conservation and efficiency gains-- its realistic choices for what is referred to as "baseload" generation of reliable and economic electricity are coal and nuclear. Yeh, yeh we gotta invest in renewables but they are not going to provide the quantity and 24/7 availability requirements.
The tradeoffs are that coal is available but it produces greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear is safe, but expensive to build. Once built, though, nuclear is cost competitive and, of course, is emissions-free.

As for the lack of a national storage facility, where are the demands for Senators Schumer and Clinton to try to get their Majority Leader Harry Reid of NV to stop his obstructing the Yucca Mountain disposal facility project through his powerful position? Reid has introduced a bill that would have the government takeover spent fuel storage at present reactor sites and continue to store it there indefinitely. It doesn't look like it will be enacted, but that approach is contrary to the existing Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
There is some hope for the Yucca Mountain disposal facility progress: the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing an application to begin the construction of the facility. They have the charther and professional people to thoroughly review the application to be sure it will meet safety and other regulatory requirements.

Sorry for the duplicative entries: I was unsure the first one was accepted.
There is a political aspect in the second comment that reflects the reality of the status quo. New York readers might not realize that electricity ratepayers in their State have paid over $1.6 billion, via their serving electric utilities, to the federal government for spent nuclear fuel disposal services that were to have begun in 1998, but will be provided no earlier than 2020.

I enjoyed your article and would like to offer a local perspective to this important discussion. For the sake of disclosure, I am the Mayor of Oswego, NY and also work at Nine Mile Point.
To avoid future shortages, price spikes and potential brownouts in New York, new sources of electrical power will be required to meet future baseload demand, which is the power needed continuously, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of weather or climate.
There are only two ways to produce continuous, uninterrupted power for baseload demand: either via hydropower or a power plant fueled by nuclear or fossil fuels [such as coal, oil or gas.] Hydropower is dependent on the flow of its water supply. But there are no undeveloped hydropower sites left in New York capable of producing the several thousand or more megawatts that will be needed.
Nuclear power is the only alternative we have at this time that can meet growing baseload demand -- and not produce greenhouse gases; not contribute to global warming; not cause acid rain and not pollute with toxic mercury (as coal-fired plants do).
Alternative energy such as solar and wind can help, but these sources are by their nature intermittent, so they can’t replace the kind of round-the-clock supply that meets baseload demand.
Similarly, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs are important, but neither alone can meet the need for new base-load generation. Decades of energy efficiency programs have slowed rising demand, but not reduced it.
If we don't utilize nuclear energy, we'll have to turn to coal or gas to meet growing baseload demand. Becoming more dependent than ever on fossil fuels is going in the wrong direction if we hope to implement a realistic solution to slow or reduce climate change.
While nuclear generates loads of power �" almost 20 percent of America's electricity needs �" we are still underutilizing it. France's 58 operating nuclear power plants provide 77 percent of that nation’s needs.
Thus, any rational approach to new energy generation capacity must include expanded use of nuclear power as the one viable option able to accomplish all these objectives.
I agree that people will come out of the woodwork on this issue. But in our local area they have constantly come out in favor of it.

Mr. Bateman,

There are no holes in your arguments except that they are rational and factual. Of course nuclear power is the ONLY long term viable source of dense energy. Wind power and solar power are much more expensive per watt as well as intermittent, but that is another fact.

Three Mile Island, China Syndrome, Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. These few words carry enough fear and anxiety to crush any sensible defense of the peaceful, safe and economical use of nuclear power. As to the question of waste storage, everyone senator is for it except the one that would have to have it in his/her state. NIMBY! Not In MY Back Yard. What do you say to a waste storage facility where the spent fuel is buried deep in the bedrock of Oswego, thousands of feet deep? What would your constituents say even if I could prove, with facts and calculations, that such a facility would be completely safe for the next 10 million years?

About the only way New York is going to get more nuclear energy is to contract with Canada to build a facility in Canada and then purchase the energy from them.

Although there are many nuclear plants around the world, one Chernobyl-like incident will chill any Global Warming argument used in favor of using nuclear power. Man is prone to error, despite the efforts of the best and brightest who build and maintain our nuclear power plants. For, when you think about it, they have to be the best given the consequences of a nuclear error. Also, nuclear plants take a long time to build (meaning paperwork), a lot of insurance, and lots and lots of water to cool the plants�"not to mention the warmed waters discharges which affect fish life.

As for the “baseload” argument that coal and nuclear power are our only choices: If we redesigned our electrical grid so that computers could help channel energy loads when and where they are needed, solar and wind power could provide the necessary base loads. Critics are forever belying the reliability of wind and solar because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine. Well, if the grid is large enough, the wind does always blow�"somewhere. And already there are reliable solar batteries that can store energy when the sun doesn’t shine�"it’s called heating water, which retains heat very well and could heat our houses.

As for the arguments about wind and solar power having to be given tax breaks by the government, it’s hard to take them seriously when one thinks about how many billions the US has allowed the oil companies in tax relief.

Isn’t it time to do the right thing on energy and go renewable energy? You won’t need an iodine pill for your thyroid, if you live next to a wind turbine.

Please note that I'm not usually a blogger and am rarely wont to reply to any thread, but the intelligence and conviction of the previous posters has literally spilled these words onto the page.

I'm really just here to echo and add supporting facts to Mr. Regan's comments regarding Solar (and Wind to a lesser extent) as our only viable long-term energy generation options and thus also refuting Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Peterson's positions, with all due respect of course.

One only needs to look at the energy resources available on our planet side by side to clearly see where we should be placing our taxpayer dollars. Exhibit A: www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/ --The research of Doctor Richard Perez at SUNYA on Energy Reserves and Resources. In this pictorial representation, the volume of each sphere represents in the case of the finite resources, the amount of embodied energy remaining in the Earth in the form of RAR + Speculative reserves as of 2007 and in the case of renewable resources the amount of energy available each year at industry-average conversion factors. Specific citations for the research are available by request.

One will quickly note two points; 1) The solar resource hitting the planet each year (10% sun-electricity conversion efficiency) is vastly larger than the embodied energy contained within all of the planet's finite fossil fuel and nuclear resources combined even today. 2) (Easily apparent) The size of the finite-resource spheres will only decrease, and the perpetual resources will stay the same.

If it's not clear by this point that Solar is humanity's only solution to not only meeting our global energy needs cleanly and sustainably, but providing an avenue for energy demand growth well past this century, then I suggest you take another look at the spheres.

On Base Load capacity requirements: It's true, although Solar PV provides grid stress relief and is highly valuable to utilities (including RG&E) in peaky high-demand times during the summer, past a capacity of around 2-3% on an energy basis the resource--without adequate storage--will start harming rather than helping the Load Duration Curve. Thankfully, much research is being done with regards to grid improvements and energy storage technology in particular at Sandia, NREL, Brookhaven and Lawrence Berkeley National Labs.

The most promising of these storage scenarios today look like a combination of PHEV and CAES; Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicles/ Compressed Air Energy Storage.

Until we come up with a way to fuse Deuterium and unleash the power of the atom, Solar is our best shot for energy independence, demand growth, and a clean, sustainable future.

What better way to mobilize the extremely talented and intelligent workforce we have at our fingertips in upstate New York than to invest in research, development, engineering, design, manufacturing and trade in Solar PV and it's sister technologies!