New York governor seeks to build the state's first new nuclear power plant in decades
NEW YORK (AP) — New York's governor on Monday proposed the construction of the state's first new nuclear power plant in decades.
Gov. Kathy Hochul directed the state's power authority to develop an advanced, 'zero-emission' facility in upstate New York that she hopes will help create a clean, reliable and affordable electric grid for the state.
She said the state power authority will seek to develop 'at least' one new nuclear energy facility with a combined capacity of no less than one gigawatt of electricity. That would increase the state's total nuclear capacity to about 4.3 gigawatts.
The Democrat said the state needs to secure its 'energy independence' if it wants to continue to attract large manufacturers that create good-paying jobs as it deactivates aging fossil fuel power plants.
'We're going to get it done,' Hochul said, speaking at the Niagara County Power Project in Lewiston. 'This historic initiative will lay the foundation for the next generation of prosperity.'
The governor said the state hasn't decided on a potential location, but that upstate communities appear receptive, given the potential for creating 1,600 construction jobs and 1,200 permanent jobs once the facility is operational.
'Everybody is raising their hand right now,' Hochul said. 'It's going to be hard to decide.'
Among those likely in the running is the Nine Mile Point nuclear plant in Oswego. Hochul's administration has been supportive of Maryland power company Constellation's bid to build a new nuclear reactor at the two-reactor facility.
American utilities have been broadly reluctant to launch new nuclear plants due to high cost overruns and delays on recent high-profile projects.
Georgia Power Company completed the first two new nuclear reactors in the country in a generation last year. But Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia, cost nearly $35 billion and were powered up some seven years later than initially hoped.
Last month, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the nation's largest public power company, applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop what it bills as a next-generation nuclear power plant at its Clinch River site in Oak Ridge. The federally owned utility provides electricity to seven states and operates three traditional, large nuclear power plants, providing about 40% of the Tennessee Valley's power.
New York currently has three active nuclear plants, all located upstate along Lake Ontario and owned by Constellation. The Nine Mile Point, Robert Emmett Ginna and James A. FitzPatrick plants provide about 3.3 gigawatts of power, or roughly 20% of the state's electricity, according to Hochul's office.
The last nuclear power plant built in the state was Unit 2 at Nine Mile Point in 1989. At its peak, nuclear power provided about 5.4 gigawatts, or roughly one-third of the state's electrical supply, according to the advocacy group Nuclear New York.
The New York Power Authority previously operated two nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Power Plant, which shut down in 2021. That facility was located along the Hudson River some 25 miles (40 kilometers) north of New York City in Buchanan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
10 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Strike set back Iran's nuclear program by only a few months, US report says
WASHINGTON — A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of Iran's nuclear sites sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, according to officials familiar with the findings. The early findings conclude that the strikes over the weekend set back Iran's nuclear program by only a few months, the officials said. Before the attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had said that if Iran tried to rush to making a bomb, it would take about three months. After the U.S. bombing run and days of attacks by the Israeli air force, the report by the Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that the program was delayed less than six months. Former officials said that any rushed effort by Iran to get a bomb would be to develop a relatively small and crude device. A miniaturized warhead would be far more difficult to produce, and it is not clear how much damage to that more advanced research has taken place. The findings suggest that President Donald Trump's statement that Iran's nuclear facilities were obliterated was overstated, at least based on the initial damage assessment. Congress had been set to be briefed on the strike Tuesday, and lawmakers were expected to ask about the findings of the assessment, but the session was postponed. Senators are now set be briefed Thursday. The report also said much of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium was moved before the strikes, which destroyed little of the nuclear material. Some of that may have been moved to secret nuclear sites maintained by Iran. Some Israeli officials said they also believe that Iran has maintained small covert enrichment facilities that were built so the Iranian government could continue its nuclear program in the event of an attack on the larger facilities. Officials cautioned that the five-page classified report is only an initial assessment, and others will follow as more information is collected and as Iran examines the three sites at Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. One official said that the reports people in the administration had been shown were 'mixed' but that more assessments were yet to be done. But the Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as much as some administration officials had hoped and that Iran retains control of almost all of its nuclear material, meaning if it decides to make a nuclear weapon it might still be able to do so relatively quickly. Officials interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity because the findings of the report remain classified. The White House took issue with the assessment. Karoline Leavitt, a White House spokesperson, said it was 'flat-out wrong.' 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program,' she said in a statement. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' Elements of the intelligence report were reported earlier by CNN. The strikes badly damaged the electrical system at Fordo, which is housed deep inside a mountain to shield it from attacks, officials said. It is not clear how long it will take Iran to gain access to the underground buildings and then repair the electrical systems and reinstall equipment that was moved. Initial Israeli damage assessments have also raised questions of the effectiveness of the strikes. Israeli defense officials said they have also collected evidence that the underground facilities at Fordo were not destroyed. Before the strike, the U.S. military gave officials a range of possibilities for how much the attack could set back the Iranian program. Those ranged from a few months on the low end to years on the higher end. Some officials cautioned that such estimates are imprecise and that it is impossible to know how long Iran would exactly take to rebuild, if it chose to do so. Trump has declared that B-2 bombing raids and Navy Tomahawk missile strikes 'obliterated' the three Iranian nuclear sites, an assertion that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth repeated at a Pentagon news conference Sunday. But Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been more careful in describing the attack's effects. 'This operation was designed to severely degrade Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure,' Caine said at the Sunday news conference. The final battle damage assessment for the military operation against Iran, Caine said Sunday, standing next to Hegseth, was still to come. He said the initial assessment showed that all three of the Iranian nuclear sites that were struck 'sustained severe damage and destruction.' At a Senate hearing Monday, Democrats also struck a more cautionary note in challenging Trump's assessment. 'We still await final battle damage assessments,' said Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Military officials had said that to do more significant damage to the underground sites, they would have to be hit with multiple strikes. But Trump announced he would stop the strikes after approving the first wave. U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded before the strikes that Iran had not made the decision to make a nuclear weapon but possessed enough enriched uranium that if it decided to make a bomb, it could do so relatively quickly. While intelligence officials had predicted that a strike on Fordo or other nuclear facilities by the United States could prompt Iran to make a bomb, U.S. officials said they do not know yet if Iran would do so. Representatives of the Defense Intelligence Agency did not respond to requests for comment. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Why Trump's trade war will last way longer than his Iran war
President Trump had a unique advantage when he ordered the June 21 US strikes against Iranian nuclear targets: giant "bunker buster" bombs able to penetrate deeper than any weapon short of a nuke. That allowed Trump to declare victory after a few bombing runs that barely lasted a day. In Trump's other conflict — the trade standoff with dozens of trading partners — there is no such decisive weapon. Trump pretends there is, claiming that other nations will suffer grievous harm if he raises tariffs on the goods they import to the US. But in these battles, Trump is often bluffing, and his adversaries know it. Trump's willingness to attack Iran provides lessons on how he handles risk and negotiates in challenging situations. It may also dispel a myth or two about how he's prosecuting the trade war. For one thing, Trump doesn't always "chicken out." The so-called TACO trade — "Trump Always Chickens Out" — became memey in May after a Financial Times columnist observed that Trump often postpones or backs down from tariff threats. But that isn't completely true. Trump has imposed new tariffs on imports from most countries, raising the average import tax from 2.5% before he took office to about 15%. American importers are paying those taxes, and they'll be the first to tell you that, alas, Trump hasn't chickened out. Trump certainly could have chickened out when it came to Iran, especially given that several of his White House predecessors declined to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, choosing diplomacy and negotiation instead. That was Trump's approach too, until Israel opened the door to a US strike with a week of bombing that accomplished much of the job of degrading Iran's nuclear program. Even then, Trump took a considerable risk in dropping bombs on Iran, given that it could seek revenge through attacks on Americans or efforts to disrupt oil flows and cause an energy shock. What Trump demonstrated in attacking Iran is that when he has a strong hand, he plays it. Strategist Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies said Trump has a "feral instinct for human weakness ... when his enemy is lying prostrate in front of him, he's perfectly happy to kick him in the head."That was the Trump who bombed Iran. Its air defense system was shredded, its leader hiding in a bunker. Trump took a risk other presidents haven't taken because he felt the odds of success were strongly in his favor — and he might have been right. In Trump's trade war, however, most adversaries aren't nearly as vulnerable. Trump has no magic weapon, and victory is elusive. This will likely become apparent once again as a July 9 deadline approaches for dozens of countries to make trade deals with Trump or risk his "reciprocal" tariffs. The trade war was never going to end in a day, or a month, or even a year. Trump announced draconian tariffs on April 2 but postponed them a week later after an ugly market sell-off. That was Trump showing weakness, rather than the other way around, because his tariffs amounted to friendly fire, causing unintended damage at home. Markets have yo-yoed as Trump's tariffs go on, then come off, triggering alternating bouts of despair and euphoria. But markets are generally adjusting to a tariff regime that might not be so bad because Trump doesn't have the leverage to strike a decisive and lasting blow, as he did with Iran. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances Torsten Sløk, chief economist at private equity firm Apollo (Yahoo's parent company), recently mused that Trump may have "outsmarted everyone on tariffs." He suggested that as the July 9 deadline approaches, Trump may extend his trade deal deadline by as much as a year, giving markets time to adjust while the US pulls in something like $400 billion in tariff revenue, which would be nearly a fivefold increase over 2024 levels. The bigger surprise for markets, in fact, would be if Trump attempted some kind of shock-and-awe tariff blast around the July 9 deadline, rather than simply setting a new deadline. "The widely held assumption (which we share) appears to be that even if deals with trade partners do not materialize in the next two weeks (which is unlikely), the pause will simply be extended," Capital Economics explained in a June 24 analysis. "Market turmoil on the scale of those sparked by the original tariffs back in April looks improbable, if only because market participants would probably assume that any sell-off would lead to another u-turn." Trump's deliberations with China, as one example, suggest the whole ordeal could end up a quagmire rather than a decisive victory for one side or the other. In April, Trump hit Chinese imports with tariffs as high as 145%, which basically halted all inbound shipments. Trump lowered that to 30% in May. Some analysts described that development as a "truce" in the trade war and said it damaged Trump's credibility as a negotiator because he failed to act on a threat. Read more: How to protect your money during turmoil, stock market volatility Trump hasn't explained exactly what he wants from China, which could be part of a strategy that allows him to declare victory at any time and only then explain what his demands are, once he knows what he can get China to agree to. Yet China is making even that difficult. In response to Trump's tariffs, one Chinese move has been to impose new limits on exports of rare-earth magnets, a market China dominates, with about 90% of the world's supply. US companies that need those magnets for automobiles, fighter jets, medical equipment, electronics, and many other things are now running into shortages, in some cases threatening the shutdown of domestic assembly lines. As Trump sniffs out weakness in an adversary, he also recognizes strength. He must recognize that his promise of revitalizing US manufacturing will never pan out if American firms can't even get key components. China may not have all the leverage, but it certainly has some. This puts Trump in the position of bluffing, and the more he bluffs, the less serious he seems. That's why investors are fairly confident Trump's July 9 deadline will merely morph into another deadline, and maybe another one after that. The S&P 500 stock index has broadly recovered from the April sell-off, and it's close to topping the all-time high set in February. That's an indication investors don't think Trump's tariffs will harm corporate profits or stock values. There's no bunker buster in a trade war, and markets are grateful for that. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Complains Biden Let Thunderstorms Into the U.S.
President Donald Trump got a little tongue-tied speaking with reporters on Air Force One, appearing to suggest his predecessor had left the United States vulnerable to attacks by forces of nature. Asked by one journalist about the threat of Iranian retaliation on U.S. soil following strikes against three nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic over the weekend, the president was quick to pin the blame on Joe Biden. 'Biden let a lot of supercells into the United States. He was an incompetent president. He had no idea what he was doing,' Trump said in audio of the exchange obtained by Fox News. 'It was gross incompetence,' he went on. 'Among everything else, he let a lot of supercells in, many from Iran. But hopefully we'll take care of them. What Biden did to this country should never be forgotten.' There has been mounting concern in recent days over the prospect of Iran activating 'sleeper cells' of terrorist agents embedded in the U.S. to carry out attacks against American citizens and infrastructure. The term 'supercell,' meanwhile, refers to a type of thunderstorm that rotates on an axis as the result of powerful updrafts. Trump's comments came as he flew to the Netherlands for a NATO summit at The Hague, where he is expected to discuss mounting global instability with other alliance leaders. Another journalist aboard the aircraft pointed out that at a time of increasing conflict, many member states have expressed concern over the president's historically tepid view of Article Five, pertaining to NATO's provisions for mutual defense. Asked whether he stood by those provisions, Trump responded, 'Depends on your definition.' 'There's numerous definitions of Article Five, you know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends,' he said. 'I'm gonna give you an exact definition when I get there. I just don't wanna do it on the back of an airplane.'
