O/T: Nuclear Reactor Problems

Page 8 of 16  
On 6/2/2011 12:54 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: ...

Nope. It can help in niche markets and supplement but it's always going to be expensive compared to alternatives for baseload generation at least for the foreseeable future. When and if there's a quantum leap in storage technology at reasonable cost, _then_ you can begin to think in new paradigms. Until then, not so much....

Such shortsighted thinking is absolutely asinine -- and you're the one trying to pretend you're looking ahead. :(

Pickens really calls it his "cash cow" and gives a rat's patootie about anything else other than short term profit (after all, he's only a limited portion of his allotted seven-score left to go; what's he care?).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/2/2011 12:54 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

ACTUAL_CURRENT_BILL_$ * 1.26 == BILL_AT_20%_MANDATE_$
Is your power too cheap to meter I guess you're saying so it doesn't make any difference to you what the incremental use rate is?
If you're trying to impugn that the size of the utility service is small that it doesn't really matter, purchased power in 2010 for the distributing co-op organization just about $92.8M; our share is roughly $3M. So, if that goes up 25%, it's equivalent of an additional tax of some 3/4 of a million dollars or about $23M for the the combined co-ops that cover roughly half of the state (geographically). You'll have got that kind of chump change stashed in the dresser sock drawer I suppose.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

Actually I was only trying to understand the scope.
$750K is a sixeable nut where ever you are but it still pales when compared to the oil industry subsidy that is North of $24 BILLION with a "B".
The $24 Billion subsidy is one of the primary reasons for a renewable energy subsidy you want to keep bringing to the table.
What does the average retail customer pay for power ($/KWH) on an annual basis including the 25% increase?
I see rates that vary from $0.10/KWH to as much as $0.17/KWH depending on various subsidies, off peak deals, etc, around the country.
BTW, other than power, what else did your $750K buy or better yet the $3M your REC group kicked in?.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/2/2011 7:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: ...

????
That was our expense for the power we distributed for 2010; nothing else. We're distribution, not generation; that's the bill to the generation bunch.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

So what did the $3M buy?
Somebody made money from the deal.
Who?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/2011 8:14 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

We buy and sell widgets. The widgets happen to be kWhrs. That was our cost for the widgets for last year.
We turned around and sold the widgets for enough to cover operating costs and a little more. We're a member-owned cooperative; our purpose isn't to make money but to provide the service to our members. So, beyond covering expenses, we try to only keep a reasonable ROI for improvements and maintenance, etc..
As for the rest, the generation comes from folks who are in the same business; some are commercial and some are also electric cooperatives. They have the expected business models for the type of venture they happen to be.
There are a large number of utilities of all stripes (municipal, investor-owned, cooperatives) that are transmission/distribution only; ie, do not operate generation facilities. There are, otoh, generation-only utilities as well (altho I don't know of any that are municipal of the type, there are cooperatives and investor-owned).
Somehow you're being either purposely obtuse or I fail to understand how this can seem to be so complicated/foreign to you...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/2/2011 7:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote: ...

OK, so first you compare the full nationwide petroleumto a single, relatively small group of rural electric co-ops on a one-to-one basis of absolute dollars...

Then, you claim that the oil depletion allowance (the bulk of the "subsidy" folks are ranting about these days) somehow has something central to do w/ central station coal and nuclear generation rates.(1)
Lastly, the subsidies for green energy have virtually nothing to do w/ the comparative balance between oil and gas but almost everything to do w/ a mostly political agenda couched in "save the planet" terms.

Despite the combined efforts of the cooperating co-ops that form the pool of which we are one of 29 local RECs to acquire cost-effective generation our retail rates are still towards the upper end of the range you have outlined above. This is primarily owing to the fact we are very rural and therefore the transmission costs are quite high owing to the large number of miles of line we have installed and maintain. Rather than an urban utility of many loads(meters)/mile, we measure in miles/meter.
This is yet another example of the hidden tax of the cost of rural services that is generally unrecognized by the folks who eat the food and wear the fiber and other products we produce for them.
(1) As a sidebar on depletion credit...
Depletion, like depreciation, allows for the recovery of capital investment over time. Percentage depletion is used for most mineral resources including oil and natural gas. It is a tax deduction calculated by applying the allowable percentage to the gross income from a property. For oil and natural gas the allowable percentage is 15 percent.
A part of the tax code since 1926, percentage depletion has changed over time. Current tax law limits the use of percentage depletion of oil and gas in several ways.
First, the percentage depletion allowance may only be taken by independent producers and royalty owners and not by integrated oil companies.
Second, depletion may only be claimed up to specific daily American production levels of 1,000 barrels of oil or 6,000 mcf of natural gas.
Third, the deduction is limited to 65% of net taxable income.
Fourth, the net income limitation requires percentage depletion to be calculated on a property-by-property basis.
Over 85 percent of Americas oil wells are marginal wells producing less than 15 barrels per day. About 75 percent of American natural gas wells are marginal wells.
Marginal wells are unique to the United States; other countries shut down these small operations. Once shut down, they will never be opened again it is too costly. Even keeping them operating is expensive they must be periodically reworked, their produced water (around 9 of every 10 barrels produced) must be disposed properly, the electricity costs to run their pumps must be paid. The depletion credit is instrumental in providing sufficient ROI to continue to produce from these wells and for continued exploration and wildcatting.
Even at current high prices during the period between the previous peak and the recent resurgence it was very apparent in how much local "oil patch" activity followed those swings. It didn't take long for the rework rigs to get parked again when prices went back to the $80 range. The folks in DC (and to a lesser extent even in Topeka) simply don't seem to follow that significant economic activity occurs only when there is a better return in any given area than there would be by doing something different.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

That was your statement, you claim to be subsidizing the renewable energy business. --------------------------------

No, but nice try. --------------------------------

You are entitled to your misguided opinion. -------------------------------

Since you didn't directly answer the question, will assume your retail price is around $0.15/KWH.
The latest data I found for the average retail price of a KWH for the state of Kansas was $0.0956/KWH for Nov 2009.
Sounds like somebody in Kansas is getting a hell of deal.
Might want to check it out. ------------------------------------

Like a lot of the tax code, the depreciation allowance has outlived it's usefulness.
I remember when oil was less than $10/bbl and gasoline was $0.15/Gal and the depreciation allowance was 27% and the senators from OK were going to make sure it stayed that way to insure future exploration.
Today, oil is North of $100/bbl and gas in my neighborhood just dropped to $3.81/gal.
Hardly sounds like an industry that needs gov't help.
Time to invest in the next generation of energy which at this point in time does not include nuclear.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/2011 8:53 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

I made no such statement other than that there are significant subsidies in place for renewables and various states have mandates that utilities within them must utilize a stated percentage of that power irregardless of whether it is the least cost power available to them. That forces demand that otherwise wouldn't be there.
...

And can you demonstrate the opinion to in error?

Not terribly far off....

Seems somewhat low. Would guess does not include fuel adjustment and other local tariffs.

As per usual, indeed the urban areas get a major break compared to rural areas because it simply costs more to deliver to one farmstead every mile to three miles as opposed to however many houses/apartments there on a city block.

Believe me, we know the problem all too well...
To add insult to injury, the KCC allowed one of the investor utilities to cherry-pick the one sizable industrial load on our distribution and at the same time dump the rural area of the county they had served for almost 50 years as "unprofitable" owing to the low load density. If we were to rely on such we still would have no power at all, no matter what the cost. That's the reason behind the REA movement to begin with and it hasn't changed in 80 years.
...

That it doesn't apply to the integrated oil companies means it isn't what most folks represent it to be (and I'd guess even a majority of the congress critters at the hearings not too long ago other than the particular few w/ direct knowledge. Other than that they generally just take the populist position on anything.)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree 100%
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/31/2011 10:49 PM, Robatoy wrote:

I guess I have to allow as there is at least one possibly worse use of n-gas--one could flare it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"dpb" wrote:

Are you talking about a refinery or a landfill flare?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/2/2011 12:28 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Neither. I'm saying about the only use of natural gas less productive than for central station generation would be to simply open the feed line and flare it instead.
Interesting, of course is history here...been reading a reprint edition of Time magazine from May, 1945, the week after the fall of Berlin and the capitulation. In it is a story just happened to see this morning about the first pipeline finished from TX to WVA to capture the some 200,000,000 cuft/day of "waste" gas being blown off from TX oil production all within roughly 10 miles from the new line. No estimate was given of what the overall blow-off and flared volumes were at the time.
Think what having those supplies back would do to energy costs now.
Using up large quantities of what we have left for generation is just about as stupid as that previous waste seems now.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Looks like they are going to need north of 80,000 pairs of lead pants for the folks who have been forced to evacuate who lived within 10 miles of the triple reactor melt down in Japan.
How about some more nukes?
Lead pants can be a growth industry.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Be impossible to say for sure, but ... If the 18,000 dead from the "natural" disaster had the opportunity to wear those lead pants instead, I reckon they'd jump at the chance.
Just saying ....
--
www.ewoodshop.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/09/11 12:43 AM, Swingman wrote:

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Shame on you for being so disrespectful.
(From where they're at ... at least six feet). :(
--
www.ewoodshop.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Where there is smoke...................
http://tinyurl.com/6l6lzn2

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

I am all for oversight. There's always a chance that a privately owned utility will try shortcuts to improve their bottom line. We have a good sized unit just 1.5 hrs up the lake from here ( http://www.brucepower.com/about-us/ ) and they are all over those guys. The rest of the nukes are monitored by themselves, NOT a good plan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just lucky................................
http://tinyurl.com/3n3qg7j
Bring on the nukes.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% 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.