California electric rates are getting ridiculous

[Mark1]

just to throw more fuel on the fire

enter these keywords into googel and read a few of the hits

radioactivity from coal

Mark

[Stormin Mormon]

So, what does that mean?

[Ed Pawlowski]

I'm in CT, but MA is just as bad. We also, proudly, have the highest gasoline prices after Hawaii. As an industrial user, at work we are paying .151. And people wonder why manufacturing has moved out of New England.

[scorpster]

Based on my most recent Nov electric bill, my CA rate is 20¢ per kWh. A big reason for the inflated rate is the ridiculous Tier 1, 2, 3, 4 structure where they put me in Tier 4 even though our 4-person household is already very efficient with our energy use. I think Tier 1 and 2 is reserved for singles living in apartments. I feel like I am being ripped off because of the coal and fossil fuel-loving nuclear-haters.

[scorpster]

I'm talking about the radiation level once the waste is properly stored.

The common CAT scan at the doctor's office produces much more frightening levels of radiation in ONE SESSION than the public exposure to high-level waste radiation even if there were some kind of accident at one of these remote storage sites. Amazing how you try to scare the general public, it's all propaganda with little scientific basis.

[Pete C.]

That wasn't the only reason. Manufacturing was actively driven out of CT because it wasn't trendy. The politicos wanted only high tech companies to fit their vision of a prosperous educated state, and of course educated people don't stoop as low as manufacturing jobs. That is why CT now has a dangerously stratified economy with high end jobs, low end service jobs and little in between.

[Pete C.]

You are, in part, but the mock "deregulation" CA tried to pull also backfired badly.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/5/2008 9:07 PM Pete C. spake thus:

There was nothing "mock" about it--and by the bye, we have a California Democrat, Steve Peace*, to thank for that disastrous deregulation that left us open to the depredations of Enron, et al. (See "The Smartest Kids in the Room" for the full story.)

• Not to mention the deposed Gov. Gray Davis, also a Democrat.

[Pete C.]

It was indeed "mock" deregulation as in typical CA fashion, they tried to lock consumer utility rates while making the utilities absorb all risk from fluctuation in the energy markets.

Here in Texas deregulation is legitimate and we have a wide array of supplier choices and rates that are pretty midrange relative to other states. We can even select a 100% wind generation source if we want for a few cents more per kwh. Of course given the intermittent generation of wind, we're still dependent on other generation technologies to fill in the gaps, the primary drawback of wind generation, but they claim 100% wind on an equivalent KWH basis at any rate.

[trader4]

One other component here to consider when comparing standards of living is this. How much does Norway, Sweden or Switzerland spend to keep the world free? And how much has the US spent, since WWII doing exactly that? How many aircraft carriers do those countries have in hot spots like the Straits of Hormoz, keeping the worlds oil supply lanes, which their own economies depend on, open and protected from countries like Iran?

Had the US not spent trillions on defense over the last 6 decades, we could have spent that money on a higher standard of living. But then those other three countries likely wouldn't be free because the communists would have taken them over, and perhaps the rest of the world too. Must be nice to be one of those countries, living so well, knowing that someone else is bearing the majority costs of defending the world and will be there to save you if necessary.

[Jim Elbrecht]

-snip-

In upstate NY where Niagara Mohawk used to be king and was the cheapest power outside of the TVA until they tried and failed to go nuclear. . .

National Grid bought them out a while back. In the past 2 years the "stated cost" has gone from 7.1 to 15 [and back down to 7.8cents this month]. But the delivery fees & all the other crap has upped the rate from 14.6 to 16.4- and last month was 14.2.

Jim

[Jim Redelfs]

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. 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

[dpb]

I don't know what you mean, specifically. The question is (or should be) "what is specifically inadequate in the shipping cask design as demonstrated by a failure during test or for what additional achievable condition(s) of any conceivable accident haven't been tested?"

The above statement is unanswerable and doesn't help anything.

More populist politics with no reasonable basis in risk as compared to ordinary activities along the Strip every day. Great for grandstanding politicians to get attention; not so much value for accomplishing anything useful.

Again, the unknowing are more the unwilling than vice versa imo. Another poster upthread claimed the protest movement didn't really affect much and in some minor ways that's true. What it did do, however, is a great disservice in that it raised irrational fear based on ignorance in the general populace.

--

[trader4]

I can only wonder what would happen if someone came to you anti-nuke extremists with some other ideas. How about a device with 4 wheels and a motor that could transport 4 people at 60MPH? But the downside is that 50,000 a year in the US will die in it due to accidents. Yet, we all live with automobiles. Should we eliminate them too?

Or how about airplanes? We have those and huge international airports close to major cities. I could conjure up images of plane crashes in highly populated areas and make the case for eliminating them too.

As a side note, the only reason all that nuclear waste is still sitting around at nukes, both operating and decommissioned, is that extremists have blocked moving it to a single, safe, secure storage facility, ie Yucca. Had extremists not still be doing everything they can to try to stop or slow it down, the waste would be there now.

Nuclear isn't perfect or without risks. Neither is any other form of energy. Particularly amusing to me is how the same environmental extremists who rail against nukes are telling us that in a few more decades we're going to have disastrous climate change from CO2 emissions which will kill hundreds of millions, if not all of us. So, we have nuclear power, which could be a quick and major way to reduce CO2 emissions, yet we shouldn't use it even as other supposedly enlightened countries like France openly embrace it?

And I'm tired of the usual nonsense about how we can just conserve. The simple fact is that the world's population is growing every year. And countries like India and China are becoming rapidly developed. At most, conservation can slow the rate of increase of energy growth. And BTW, these other countries are going to build nukes whether we do or not. By not doing so ourselves, all we do is put ourselves at an economic disadvantage to them.

[dpb]

dpb wrote: ...

... Other than the aforementioned fact that if so it's only an act of political grandstanding, I'd question whether a local official has the jurisdiction to interfere w/ legitimate interstate commerce?

--

[willshak]

on 12/4/2008 8:34 PM David Nebenzahl said the following:

All life on earth will be dead millions of years before the Sun finally dies.

[terry]

Unfortunately 'nuclear' electric power has NOT proven to be as economical as originally thought. Also, leaving aside Chernobyl and much lesser dramatic, Three Mile island accidents etc. and the problem of 10,000 to 100,000 year disposal/storage of nuclear wastes, nuclear after some 50 years has not yet proved itself a viable technology for the day to day production of electrcity. Isotopes and other medical products etc. yes. In norther Canada, especially Labrador there is a vast potential for (although it does involve further flooding of native lands) less polluting further production of electrcity that can and will be developed during next few years. It would be wise for the rulers of California and other energy hungry and inefficient users of energy to a) Conserve, get more efficient. b) Think internationally for the purchase of energy from a politically stable and friendly country to the north. There is no doubt that Canada is expanding it's own East-West energy corridors/links and that hydro generated power is relatively cheaper, and less directly polluting (especially at point of use). And just wait until electric cars are a an actuality! As opposed to dragging barrels of oil from the political turmoil of the Middle East, past the pirates of Somali-land, burning off some of it to make gasoline etc.! Plug into an outlet and recharge your vehicle in a few hours. There is a story (true or otherwise?) that some hybrid car owners are already doing some home recharging after daily commuting? Also that it is economical?

[HeyBub]

You make an excellent point. We ARE the world's policeman, but, like police everywhere, we don't do a perfect job. We do do a good enough job to (mostly) discourage the really bad perps from taking over the world. As the Color Sergeant said in "Zulu" when asked "Why us?" he replied: "Because we're here, lad. No one else. Just us. Now face to the front. Mark your target when he comes. And button that tunic. That's a good lad."

In his book, "The Pentagon's New Map," Thomas Barnett makes exactly the point you raise.

It's also interesting that the United States Coast Guard is larger than any other country's navy.

Consider Sadaam Hussein - he pissed off somebody. So we invaded his country, evicted him from his homes, confiscated his fortune, exiled his family, killed his children, imprisoned most of his friends, and ultimately hanged his ass. Presumably this will have a sobering effect on others similarly inclined.

As an aside, the complaint that some soldiers die as a result of American adventures is specious. Our warriors volunteered knowing that death or injury was possible. Exactly the same as someone who wants to climb a mountain or drive a race car or take a dive to the Titantic. But those hobbyists don't get an opportunity to kill people and blow things up.

[dpb]

Oren wrote: ...

I guess familiarity helps here -- 30 years primarily in commercial power generation with BSNE and MS Physics w/ an emphasis on nuclear energy degrees means makes for not being scared and recognizing what is fearmongering and what is at least a rational argument.

Having a fair amount of that 30 years also being in the Oak Ridge area and also doing a fair amount of consulting to DOE at the various facilities including some review studies of vendor cask licensing design and analysis submittals and knowing many of the other individuals at Sandia, Los Alamos, Savannah River, Argonne, ..., on a professional basis concern over their credentials and integrity is not a concern of mine.

Without that background and given the general level of political doubletalk I can understand skepticism from the pronouncement of politicos. The underlying questions here, however, aren't actually political.

As a comforting thought, there are three basic rules for radiation exposure protection -- time, shielding, distance. You have the cheapest and easiest to obtain one going for you--distance. :)

--

[HeyBub]

Electricity is not a power SOURCE, it is a power DISTRIBUTION system.

Charging the batteries in an electric car is conceptually NOT the same as filling the tank with gas.