California electric rates are getting ridiculous

Hmmm.

So you say.

Funny. Your way of presenting an argument doesn't match the mathematicians (my area) or physicists I've worked with over the years. I think you've deserted any scientific roots you may have had and simply become a freelancing industry tout.

BTW, I did consulting (computer systems design) for EPRI in the SF Bay area a "while ago". LOL.

Is that Lynchburg College in Lynchburg Virginia?

LOL. What a twit!!

Yes. Predicting the past is the only reliable course. Forget all those wacky scientists with their pussified "theories" that predict the future.

I'm surprised we aren't still living in trees -- of course that's only if you believe in evolution.

LOL.

Erma1ina wrote: ...

So I say.

Funny. Your personal attacks and arguments have had little resemblance to a mathematical treatise.

ahr is not a suitable forum for detailed scientific or engineering writing--although specific opinions offered have been based on direct experience/knowledge and certain comments noted as being recollections were later verified as fundamentally correct.

--

dpb wrote: ...

sabotage.

while en route, and

...

Also of possible interest

So, just who are these elite forces?

radiological sabotage.

while en route, and

...

Moonlighting black helicopter pilots, of course.

--

How much for a prisoner transport? Always a use for choppers!

Ermina, your writings don't come across like someone with understanding of advanced mathematics or theoretical physics. Your personal insults are pretty sharp, but I haven't seen you put much effort into applying scienctific knowledge in these conversations.

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

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.

--

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.

--