Talk:Indian Point Energy Center

Controversy and Issues Section.
Violations are straight forward. They are part of the record. Someone, no doubt a representative of the plant, has deleted the reference to the release of long lived radioactive isotopes TWICE. Could it be that reference is very important. I think so. --Job1207 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do restore any deleted sourced neutrally-expressed text: don't put up with furtive censorship.--17:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, whomever you are. If someone thinks that something I wrote needs to be "balanced." I would be happy to talk about that here. In that regard, since this is in the news, and there are some objections below, a line by line discussion, based on the 8 current points in the contents section for the original IPEC listing is fine with me. I am sitting here on ice, literally, and so, I might as well do something useful. --Job1207 (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP policy is that articles should be written with undue weight. Overpowering a short entry with lengthy details of every minor incident a plant has had makes an article a WP:COATRACK.  Further, misrepresenting a source by calling isotopes likes Strontium-90 "long lived" is incorrect policy as well.  239Pu is a long lived isotope; 90Sr is not.


 * Further, your text failed to mention the most important aspect of the story, which was that the elements were released in trace quantities, contained on site, and with zero implication of risk to the general public. Just putting in text "There was a radiation leak" is POV-pushing and against WP policy.  FellGleaming (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so 100 years, as is stated is Not long lived? Also, 28.8 years is not long lived? The NY Times article does not state the concentration, only that the release is ongoing. I will put the half lives of the particular compounds in the reference. The NY DEC did note that the Hudson itself was polluted with radioactive compounds. I have not found what that is yet. I did post the NYTimes quote to that effect however. Also, at the very least, such a finding requires a higher level of vigilance. It most certainly should remain on the record. The fact that you removed any reference of this event twice, and now seek to modify the note is telling.

Finally, if you have the reference regarding the exact quantities that would be helpful. Also, any data about ongoing testing.

On another topic, someone removed the notion that Indian Point is near an Earthquake fault. I will be putting that back as well.

On yet another topic, Patrick Moore was NOT a founder of Greenpeace, and he does advocate for clear cut logging. They are pertinent facts. --Job1207 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace, and your attempts to insert his views on logging into an article on nuclear power is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.  I suggest you read WP:COATRACK and WP:NPOV.  FellGleaming (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fell, I just inserted Greenpeace's opinion of Mr. Moore. I expect it to stay there. If you want to shorten your input, I will shorten mine. Mine is already shorter than yours.

unsigned comment added by 207.172.149.132 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fell, I do not mind working with you. Not even Mr. Moore claims he was a cofounder. Look it up. I have to go now. I will be looking in later. You are also amending my words. Some of it is appropriate, and some of it is not. If YOU want to use Moore as an expert, he IS subject to voir dire. Links to views that question his credibility are exactly what goes to the heart of voir dire. It is up for Wiki to decide what is balanced. Not you. --Job1207 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to Strontium, the article is clear, they did not find trace amounts. They found three times the drinking water limit. ( And of course, once it got into the Hudson it was diluted ) Using the word TRACE is totally incorrect.

Furthermore, WIKI DID come in and say that my original post about the radioisotopes was fine. These leaks are taking place in an industry that now has leaks at about 40% of the sites. ( Many sites have more than one reactor ) --Job1207 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, if these isotopes are leaching into the water, there is no reason that U 238 or Plu could not wind up there as well. That is beyond the scope of this article, but here are just a few references. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11468818 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11414035 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2793477 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12322739 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15683879

It has happened before, and is the subject of a great deal of study. There are MANY more articles like these. There are actually Too numerous to count articles on this topic.

Also, Strontium is akin to Calcium. It goes for the bone and stays there. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/strontium.html#inbody

There are so many reasons to clearly state what is going on at Indian Point. Frankly, the most important is the notion that there are 100 other sites around the country that could well leak more toxic isotopes under more difficult circumstances.

Furthermore, these leaks carry with them a HUGE CLEANUP expense. That is undoubtedly why Exelon tried to divest themselves of these plants into a spin off company that would not be able to afford the cleanup that will be coming at some point in the future. --Job1207 (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

is this plant really running nowadays fission contention less fuel ?

Garbage
Listen to me. I work for an engineering contracting company who does work at IPEC. I have doen numerous projects at IPEC including the engineering for upgrades to their generator excitation system at unit 2, and am currently involved in the security upgrade efforts. I say this to validate that I am a credible source of knowledge to be stating opinion on this article.

Now. I read this article, and thought to myself: "You have got to be kidding me?" This article does not represent the high level of accuracy and the neutral unbiased perspective of the subject that I and most others respect and expect from this website. This article needs a complete revision. Indian Point has been in the crosshairs of the media for 30 years now for one reason: It sells.

There is not one word in this entire article that even considers the good that Entergy and Indian Point does for the community. Between the blood drives, the volunteer work, and the active effort to keep up with the latest in safety related technology, this article should AT A MINIMUM mention these facts in the text of the article.

Look at the Wikipedia entry for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS) in Forked River, NJ (the oldest nuclear generating station in the USA, by the way). Notice how both the anti-nuclear advocates AND the nuclear advocates are equally represented in the article with points justified by FACTS and not by media entries. Why does Indian Point Energy Center not receive the same level of respect?

For anyone who took this time to read this: please TAKE THIS ARTICLE DOWN until it is rewritten with at least an 8th graders level of rigor in terms of research and factual based content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoit18 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, Wikipedia cannot function as an advocate for Indian Point, as Shoit18, who logged in specifically to insert this post, would hope for.--Wetman (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems
It appears as though a fear mongering business,IPRadMon, is editing this page in the hope of getting some business. Notice the similarity between the "controversy" section and their website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.201.125 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of the words "ill informed" activists makes me believe that the writer of this article was grossly inadequate or had not read the rules for posting.

Come on... this is not the place for apologists for nuclear power to post their propoganda. There's way too much of that in this article-- please remove it. Better yet, there must be other articles that already cover that controversy in depth; why not just link people there to get all that?

Witt Report
What about the major report issued by the emergency safety expert Mr. Witt that came out a year or so ago? andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astewart123 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Obscured Site
While poking around on Google Earth, I noticed that a large area encompassing the IP site is pixilated at high zoom, and appears artificial (there is a clear line of boundary). I'm assuming that this is stratigically done to prevent terrorist recon. Would this be entry-worthy? Considering its proximity to NYC, it does present a real terrorist target, as mentioned in the article, but I don't know if including an observations such as this is important enough to include. Any thoughts? Davepetr 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Google Earth does that for a lot of Nationally important sites. I don't think this is anything unusual, maybe a mention on the Google Earth page would make sense. -Christopher Kraus 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly worth noting, with ref to GoogleEarth, of course.--Wetman (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
This article seems to have a lot of "what ifs". I propose a major re-write. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I agree with the "NPOV" header here, because I don't think the anti-nuclear view here really deserves to be treated as legitimate (hint: if you're worried about nuclear power plants exploding like an atomic bomb, you can go argue with the laws of physics). Having said that, there's not enough source-citing going on around here. So I'm with you on a rewrite. Collard 00:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article seemed reasonable. more sources must be sited. perhaps a rewrite is needed but not a total one. although power plants don't blow up the way bombs do, they release about 36x the radiation. I forgot the name of the sight i got that from but i know it is chernobyl related. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.190.150.146 (talk • contribs).


 * The NPOV tag has been on the article page for awhile now, but there have been no specific claims of NPOV problems (aside from the above general comments) in this talk page. I recommend citing the non NPOV text from the article here in the talk page before re-adding that tag. Thanks. --Howrealisreal 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I inadvertently had published a version with redundant content due to an editing error. The version as of this time and date is intended to restore improperly deleted content, improve NPOV, and perform some general cleanup and wikification.--Ana Nim 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to revert to that previous version. If anything, that version has too many problems in it compared to the rewrite, which is essentially (more or less) the same text. Specifically, Words to avoid (a Wikipedia manual of style) indicates that we should not use "controversy sections", neither is the Indian Point article a place to debate the pros and cons of nuclear energy in general (which your revision does [without sources even] by claiming some environmental benefits compared to combustion of fossil fuels). The focus of the "call for shutdown" section is clearly in regard to the article topic-- the plant-- with points laid out the same way as the reversion, even including rebuttals by Entergy, FEMA, and the NRC in why they feel the plant is safe. I don't see how the revert is any better or more NPOV, it just seems convoluted and unnecessary to break up information that belongs together into "controversy" and "media coverage" sections. --Howrealisreal 20:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No response so I try this rewrite. --Howrealisreal 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

In literature?
In the literature section it does not mention that the literature was inspired by numerous actual reports made by security guards. I've been thumbing around old ufo reports and noticed several reports in just 1984 alone. I like to encourage someone to look into considering a section that at least mentions that actual reports had been made and inspired the work of literature. I suggest as a starting point searching "Incident at Indian Point Reactor Complex, N. Y. 1984" or searching through old report records.

(Sources: Doris Graziano, APRO Bulletin, June 1985, p. 8; Larry Hatch, U computer database, case 14168, citing George C. Andrews, Extra-Terrestrials Among Us, p. 302; J. Allen Hynek & Philip J. Imbrogno, Night Seige: The Hudson Valley UFO Sightings, p. 148; Dennis Stacy, Field Guide to UFOs, p. 120; Peter Brookesmith, UFO: The Complete Sightings, p. 128, J. Allen Hynek & Philip Imbrogno, Night Siege, p. 143).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.127.187.34 (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

POV in introduction copy
The phrase "history of problematic performance," while having a citation, is not neutral enough for an encyclopedia. So is the treatment of terrorism and 9/11 comparisons. None of this should be in the introduction and should be moved to the main article instead. I moved it into the Controversy section instead, in an intact form, where it and the rest of that section still need reviewing for astounding POV issues. --KJRehberg (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fines and Violation are Not Controversy
I moved two bits about violations and fines out of the "Controversy" section, as the deal with presumably factual statements and both had references. There are other items that probably could be eliminated from the controversy section. It seems like there is a definite NPOV problem here. --Dwcsite (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you i agree people are jumping to make this look really bad.In my opinion of course

 Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 20:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by (Staffwaterboy): This article is very one sided it is not showing a netrual point of view for such and it seems to be very opinionated i personally am for it but,Beside the point it seems that there is alot of negativity towards the article which can possibly be bad for  a article such like this one.I think that it needs to be evened out and or/ reviewed and some context of the information removed i do have to question the factuality of the information being put.

 Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 17:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Viewpoint by (name here): ....


 * Third opinion by Fr33kman: I don't see a dispute here? Third opinion is when a neutral third-partie's opinion is wanted when there is a dispute between two seperate editors. I don't see anyone disagreeing with you. Who is the other patry?  fr33k man   -s-  04:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the tag from the article. I don't see that a dispute of any kind is occuring. If any editor thinks something is wrong with the article, they are within their rights to simply fix it! :)  fr33k  man   -s-  02:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Section Break
Well this article is definitely not netrual seems this user isn't to active anymore who ever it may be ill look in the history.

Regards  Staffwaterboy  Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 19:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think the article is not neutral then feel free to simply fix it! Remember WP:BOLD! You don't need permission to edit!  fr33k man   -s-  02:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made major changes to this article, mostly trimming down the "Controversy" section. There were a ton of external links and duplicated paragraphs, along with much original research.  I've also removed most of the various cleanup tags, as I feel their issues have been addressed.  //  Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 14:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Recertification issues
Please insure that all statements added to this section are supported by citations and accurately reflect their content. Editors should be wary of deletions and "fixes". Neutral adult supervision is needed.--Wetman (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Detagging
Unless someone comes up with a coherent argument as to what exactly they believe the NPOV issues are, I intend to remove the article tag. Fell Gleaming ( talk ) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the TALK section, provides BACKGROUND for the issues raised in the main article section. I think that this article should REMAIN under its current status permanently, because of this. Also the talk section documents the controversy that went into writing this article. That should REMAIN a part of the record.

Furthermore, I would like WIKI to comment on the above paragraph.

I am glad that the WIKI NY and Energy sections approve of this article. I just added a note about the earthquake fault, the security controversies, and the controversy over Mr. Moore's credentials. I also went through and edited for clarity other sections, WITHOUT changing the meaning. I attempted to improve the grammar. I think that the past is adequately documented. I look forward to adding to this wiki article as new issues come up. Job1207 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No Brand
I am going to remove the reference to a person named Brand, since he is nowhere else mentioned in this article, from this paragraph about Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore's support of the Indian Point facility. I thought at first that it was either vandalism or a mistake, but the cited NYT reference does mention a person named Brand. That article, in fact, is about Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand and does not even mention Patrick Moore. So, although it does attest to support of nuclear power among environmentalists, it does not specifically address Moore's position on Indian Point. I am going to rewrite the sentence to remove Brand's name and the implication that the NYT article supports Moore's position in the controversy between him and Greenpeace.--Jim10701 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just removed Moore entirely and substituted Mayor Bloomberg as a more pertinent pro-Indian Point voice. Moore is a paid consultant for the energy industry and has less value to the article than a powerful local politician. Also, the material about Moore had turned into a WP:COATRACK with the addition of the material about Greenpeace repudiating him, etc. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Major revision
I just did a major revision and reorganization of the article, with regard to neutrality and weight issues, and tried to include relevant information and opposing opinions on issues like evacuation and earthquake safety. I notice that some of this material has been included and deleted before. I think I have sourced it better than previous versions and have also been careful to add balancing views. I invite anyone who disagrees with any of my edits or would like to modify anything to discuss it here first. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Why I reverted your edit to "Spent fuel" section
I just removed the following recent edit from the article:

"Spent fuel rods remain capable of “going critical” and therefore require cooling to keep the water in the spent fuel pools from boiling away and permitting the rods from going critical and emitting radiation into the environment. Since the design of this type of plant requires active cooling, as opposed to passive cooling, the safety of the plant is entirely dependent on the continuous availability of electric power to power the pumps that supply the cooling water to the reactor and the spent fuel pools. This dependence on continuous electric power for cooling the spent fuel makes the plant susceptible to power interruption, from industrial accidents, natural disasters like earthquakes or even intentional sabotage via direct attack or through the use of viruses like the Stuxnet Virus that might target the active cooling system. While the reactors themselves are in very strong “Primary Containment” structures, the spent fuel is stored in what is sometimes referred to as “Secondary Containment” structures that have none of the structural integrity of the “Primary Containment” structures. As a result, any prolonged interruption of electric power to the spent fuel pools would make them susceptible to a castrophe similar to that which has occurred with the spent fuel pools at Fukushima-Daichi in Japan."

Although I think this is probably an accurate analysis of the risks of spent fuel, it had a couple of problems under Wikipedia rules. It needed to be reliably sourced; as it stood it smacked of original research or synthesis. Also, it took us so far into safety issues which should be dealt with in the spent fuel pool article, that it potentially became a WP:COATRACK. I would not object to re-addition of some of these assertions reliably sourced to articles discussing risks at the Indian Point plant. This article is not the place for a disquisition on spent fuel in general. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of power for New York
Hi. I just read today's NYT article on the plant and came to this page to understand more. Today's NYT article states that "The plant produces 2,000 megawatts and provides 25 percent of the power in New York City and Westchester."

This page however, says "As per the owners new electricity distribution agreement, the power plant provides only 4% of the electricity used by New York City. The rest is sold to the grid and Westchester County." A startling difference.

This seems pretty weasel-ish, in that "to the grid" could well mean that that power is used -- directly or by substitution -- to supply power demand on the grid from NYC.

This sentence cites a different NYT article, but that article does not mention any 'owners new electricity distribution agreement' nor does it mention '4 percent,' rather, it says "Indian Point’s two operating reactors — which supply up to 30 percent of the electricity used by New York City and Westchester County" and later, in a correction, "An article in some editions on April 4 about a ruling by New York State that the Indian Point nuclear power plant violates the federal Clean Water Act referred imprecisely to the portion of the electricity used by New York and Westchester County that the plant provides. It is up to 30 percent, but can be considerably less depending on the time of year and which other power plants are working; it is not always 30 percent."

In any case, the cited reference does not support the statement in the article; this needs to be corrected. In fact, the wiki later says "up to 30 percent" and uses the same citation as the 4 percent sentence. For accuracy and consistency, I'll use the same language later in the wiki in the summary. Thanks!

--Chris vLS (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was just asked to correct the percentage, and am getting up-to-date references.Sallijane (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Paranormal?
Why is this in the Paranormal Wikiproject? Should that banner be removed?Kude90 (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've thumbed through the additions, and apparently, there was a UFO siting there in 1984. I guess this should be added. And objections?Kude90 (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object. That's not a reliable source. I've removed the paranormal banner — good idea — that project is notorious for laying claim to irrelevant articles. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC).

Article Bias or Vandalism
There is allot of trash talk in this article: infact %80 or so isn't it? There are many reactors with the same list of "complaints" against them.

A good deal of "opposition" to an economic powerhouse built and owned by NY certainly WILL flow from foreigners especially those who have ties to companies that build or supply nuclear plants. There are MANY countries that would love that spending ticket and say anything to get it.

I don't think NYkers who are wallet wise should too quickly listen to everything Politians say about nuclear power safety rather than their own NY plant operators - many have proven famous for foreign deals and big digs.

And look at the safety record. All of it low incident. All of the incidents to even report were found an fixed by the plant and reported to the public. (that is cited in the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest finding an article which says what you are saying, that there were few incidents at the power plant, and add that into the article. Kude90 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it helps, I agree with you. Too much focus on the bad. Kude90 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Steam Generator Tube Rupture
This section needs more detail.

It should be made clear exactly what occurred regarding the replacement of the Steam Generators.

It should also be made clear that Steam Generator Tube failure is a normal occurrence in a Pressurized Water Reactor power plant. The failed tube is then plugged. The SG has a designed number of tubes that can be plugged for full power operation to still be possible. When this limit is reached, either power must be reduced or the SGs are replaced so the SGs are usually replaced as the number of plugged tubes approach the limit. This is a problem with PWRs that has not been solved. It is not a danger and the only solution is to replace the SGs when they fail from use.

So, the SG was NOT replaced because ONE tube ruptured as this section implies. I do not understand why one ST tube rupture is listed as an incident while others developing leaks are not. Perhaps, it was because this one suffered catastrophic failure while others developed slow leaks that were only discovered when the SGs were tested during maintenance.

IAC, plugging the tube would fix the problem until the point was reached that too many tubes were plugged and then the SGs would have to be replaced. You do the same thing with your automobile radiator.

--Tyrerj (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this does not look well: "the record peak energy consumption of New York City and Westchester County (The Con Edison Service Territory) was set during a seven-day heat wave on July 19, 2013 at 13,322 megawatts". Energy is not measured in megawatts. That 13222 is power, not energy. Look at your source. Sztrogoff (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Indian Point Energy Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insc.anl.gov/cgi-bin/sql_interface?view=country_status&qvar=name&qval=24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Indian Point Energy Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002000000/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html to http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/emerg-plan-prep-nuc-power-bg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

reads like an advertisement
Hello (& sorry thast I#m no native speaker),

the section 'economic impact' reads like an advertisement. I've added lobby group - a lobbying group is typically not neutral.

There was a sentence in the article saying
 * ''"The power generated by the plant helped maintain affordable electricity prices in New York in 2015".

Two sentences later, it says The reliability helps offset the severe price volatility of other energy sources (e.g., natural gas) and the intermittency of renewable electricity sources (e.g., solar, wind).

Is that volatility really so high ? Cost of fuel is only a part of the electricity price ...

Is the intermittency of wind energy (today, 2017) really something that contributes to a non-affordability of electricity ?

Is the intermittency of solar energy really something that contributes to a non-affordability of electricity ?

Afaik, it isn't. Could some native speaker bring more neutral (wikistyle) language into that section, please ? thanks in advance, --Neun-x (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

→I think it makes sense to limit the Economic Impacts section to factual numbers, such as employment numbers and the dollar amount of the economic output. I also went ahead and removed a sentence about nuclear power subsidies, which are not related to Indian Point. It looks like previous editors tried to achieve NPOV by piling on more and more sources "for" and "against" the plant, which do not magically balance each other out and are not necessarily relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 21:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Update needed
The article has received some recent attention but this talk page was last edited I see in 2017.

A lot seems to have happened since then that is not reflected in the article and elsewhere in Wikipedia. In particular, it's been claimed that the capacity wil be replaced by natural gas, counterclaimed that it will be replaced by renewables, and also claimed that the capacity was surplus to requirements anyway. 

Two new natural gas plants have been commissioned (CPV 678 megawatts, Cricket Valley 1,020 megawatts) and a third one upgraded (Bayonne, 120 extra megawatts) but we only seem to have an article on the third of those and it doesn't mention the upgrade. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)