California electric rates are getting ridiculous

Page 6 of 9  
Erma1ina wrote:

Then you know enough to be able search the NRC licensee event reports and can verify the incidents at Rancho Seco were nothing out of the ordinary and mostly did have to do w/ operations. Having known and worked with them personally as well as all other nuclear utilities of the particular vendor's I have no difficulty in making comparisons between the various utilities and their relative levels of expertise and differences in operations.
Beyond that unless you have a specific question, I'll leave you to do some investigative reporting on your own.
--


Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

"dpb", you're the one making the assertions without providing supporting documentation.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erma1ina wrote:

...
My recollection on the referendum portion appears correct as I thought...

<www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/rancho-seco-nuclear-generating-station.html>> Spokesmen for the nuclear power industry stress that Rancho Seco is a

<query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res•0DE0D6143EF93BA15756C0A96F948260&se...>
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Again, like a weasel, "dpb" failed to quote the PERTINENT section of the Time article:
"The Sacramento plant produced only 40% as much electricity as expected, and its output cost twice as much as that bought on the conventional market. One result was a doubling of electricity rates. Said Bob Mulholland, who headed the campaign to close Rancho Seco: 'It's the first time the debate over a nuclear plant has focused on economics rather than safety.' "
In other words, as the article I referenced stated, RANCHO SECO was NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erma1ina wrote:

I said nothing about the economics of the particular plant one way or the other, only that it wasn't a utility district choice to shut it down.
I'll only note the overall economics of nuclear can not be assessed simply from one poorly operated plant.
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"DPB", LOOK AT THE "SUBJECT" OF THIS THREAD. LOL
dpb wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

... And, elsewhere that much of Rancho Seco's problems were owing to operator, not the plant per se.
As a data point in that regard, _Electrical World Directory of Electric Power Producers 103rd Ed. shows that the Oconee plant which consists of three (count 'em, 3) plants of the same vintage (Unit I online in '73) had a net generation of 20,145,806 MWhr in 1993. The station rated output is 2667 MWe net. Working that out, one sees the whole station achieved an annual capacity factor of 86%.
From that it's pretty apparent there must have been something not up to par at SMUD in the operations. Since the plants were of the same design one aberrant result out of four suggests the one is the outlier.
I picked another earlier year at random from the EIA production database of 1980. For that year the capacity was 66% owing including the spring refueling outages at two units that particular year. That would lead to another high capacity factor year the following as there would be no outage the subsequent year needed.
Those data are available for all generation facilities by following the links at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906u.html
BTW, in comparison, I did the Gray County wind farm locally and in the 7 years since it began operation, it's average capacity factor to date is also, coincidentally, just over 40%. Meanwhile, Wolf Creek Nuclear (a different reactor vendor than Rancho Seco) has about 80% over the same time period and had a specific year of ~95% capacity for the entire year.
For baseload generation and some effect regarding C sequestration and greenhouse gases, it's hard to conceive a more effective near-term answer.
I was unable in a reasonable time to find historical data for SMUD to actually observe the effects of the shutdown on their rates but did discover they were short of generation and resorted to rolling blackouts not terribly long after. One wonders if that would have been necessary if the missing ~900 MW of capacity had been available. Also, they have since 2000 built a new 500 MWe gas-fired station--that's a real waste of natural gas which is much more valuable for many other purposes besides central-station generation.
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote: ...

... Didn't think to look at Rancho Seco from the same database--in 1980 it produced 4,425,923 KWhr w/ listed capacity of 963 MWe. That works out to 52.5% but there was again, an outage during Feb-Apr. Ratioing those three months the plant had a not great operating CF of 70% the rest of the year.
As noted, the Oconee Station demonstrates that these units with good operating practices can make 85% CF.
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I see that "dpb", like a true weasel, omitted the pertinent section of my message (including the "link" I mentioned. Here's the omitted section:
--- Start of section ---
Oh I don't think California "electric utilities fail to take advantage of clean nuclear power." or that "If we had nuclear power we'd only be paying a fraction of the price and it would be good for the environment!!"
Think: "R A N C H O S E C O" and check out:
http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports__Newsletters/20080407/laww.html
Here are some excerpts:
Regarding the specific issue of "Rancho Seco":
"If the investor-owned utilities will not build new nuclear plants, the other possibilities are municipally-owned utilities and independent generators. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which shut down its Rancho Seco nuclear plant in 1989 due to high costs and chronically poor performance, is unlikely to want to go down that road again."
--- End of section ---
Erma1ina wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erma1ina wrote:

...
I only responded to the portion on Rancho Seco shutdown not being a SMUD decision but a referendum (see other post follow-on).
The opinions stated were and are irrelevant to that. --
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

The quote from the article (link to which I provided) was:
Think: "R A N C H O S E C O" and check out:
http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports__Newsletters/20080407/laww.html
Here are some excerpts:
Regarding the specific issue of "Rancho Seco":
"If the investor-owned utilities will not build new nuclear plants, the other possibilities are municipally-owned utilities and independent generators. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which shut down its Rancho Seco nuclear plant in 1989 due to high costs and chronically poor performance, is unlikely to want to go down that road again."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmmmmm... 84 articles in the que. Pass. Sorry to butt-in...
I am grateful that we had the good sense and foresight to build a nice, little nuke 40 miles away.
I absolutely LOVE our electric rate. My monthly "level pay" plan just went from $89 to $84 - the yearly adjustment to occur in one month.
We'd better remain alert: There's a new sheriff in town and he and his posse don't like ANY of this energy stuff because they believe it is all too DANGEROUS - if not to you and me then the environment.
We MUST do whatever is necessary to ensure the completion of those plants that are approved but not yet ONLINE.
Those that favor sensible construction and use of proven, fuel-abundant energy technologies must organize an opposition to those that are already united to impede the expansion of existing, proven energy: Nuclear and clean-burning, low sulfur coal.
You can bet your bippy that "they'll" never let us build another Hoover dam to get the almost free and virtually endless power such a project would yield. Environmentalists. <sigh> Ya gotta love 'em...
We pay higher rates due, in part, to the expansion delaying tactics of the radical Environmentalist. Theirs must NOT be the only voice heard at public meetings regarding energy policy.
You'll notice, as a last gasp effort to impede, the very gas we EXHALE, is now the unbeatable boogyman in the closet. What a CROCK!
We have the means for clean, safe, reasonably-priced energy at our fingertips. Why can't we keep using that? Let the lawyers and politicians debate the infinite points that either support or implicate the technology. They'll never end.
Drill here. Drill now. Build here. Build now. Reliable, abundant, safe and affordable OIL COAL NUCLEAR
--
:)
JR

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As a resident of Louisville, Ky, living 3 miles from a coal-fired plant, I would be encouraged by your assertion of clean-burning, low sulfur coal. But the big smudge in the sky reminds that one fact shoots the hell out of a lot of theory.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Better move out of state.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:25:38 -0800, "scorpster"

It is not cheap if you include the cost of decommissioning. Consider the cost of taking care of the leftovers for the next few thousand years. Frankly no one knows what that cost might be since no one has ever decommissioned a atomic plant. They have shut them down and keep the maintenance up because:
A: No one wants the wase in their back yard B: No one knows how to do it.
    Maybe you don't care, but frankly I don't want to leave my grand kids and great great great grand kids with all that waste and cost.
    Atomic energy has never been cheep enough to compete with other sources. The only way atomic plants have been built was to provide materials for great projects like bombs. Take a look and see what the true cost of building and operating a modern atomic plant per unit of energy (after deducting government investment) and see what the real cost is, not counting decommissioning.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote: ...

That's absolutely untrue. No commercial reactor fuel or reprocessed spent commercial fuel has been used for weapons purposes.
U weapons can be and were created w/o the need of a reactor at all.
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

No commercial reactor fuel or reprocessed

Where do you get this garbage you're spewing?
PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION for your assertions or STFU.
Checkout:
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/plutbomb.htm
"NOTE 3. Although the plutonium generated by a commercial nuclear power plant is not technically "weapons grade," it has long been acknowledged that NUCLEAR BOMBS CAN BE AND HAVE BEEN BUILT WITH REACTOR-GRADE PLUTONIUM."
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote: ...

...
That's also simply flat-out wrong. In the US alone for only commercial (non-defense facilities) the following sites have had equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaiminants removed or been decontaminated to a level low enough that the property can be released and the NRC license terminated:
Big Rock Point    Charlevoix, MI     Fort St. Vrain    Platteville, CO     Haddam Neck    Meriden, CT Maine Yankee    Wiscasset, ME Pathfinder    Sioux Falls, SD     Saxton        Saxton, PA Shippingport    Shippingport, PA Shoreham    Wading River, NY Trojan        Ranier, OR Yankee Rowe    Franklin Co., MA
The following are in progress of decontamination:
Rancho Seco    Herald, CA San Onofre 1    San Clemente, CA
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Once again, "dpb" FULL OF IT!
Big Rock Point -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Fort St. Vrain -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Haddam Neck -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Maine Yankee -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Trojan -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Yankee Rowe -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
Similarly:
Dresden I -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Humboldt Bay 3 -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Indian Point I -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. LaCrosse -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Millstone I -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Zion 2 -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE. Zion 1 -- Fuel remains stored ON SITE.
For people you are truly interested in the FACTS (not the preconceptions of clowns like "dpb"), check out:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html
Several of the above reactors have been shut down for more than 3 DECADES and still have fuel stored ON SITE.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Your doctor's MRI scanning machine is also stored ON-SITE but I don't think any protesters are threatning to rip those out of the hospitals or yank people out from underneath their radiation.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.