Why don't we have more nuclear power?

But it saves manatees so that goes away.

Yeah, I think the current queen of Baltimore is going to jail for that book scam

This is Usenet. No matter how crazy something sounds, there's someone who fervently believes it.

I genuinely couldn't tell.

Cindy Hamilton

LOL Good thing I explained.

Good point

I did manage to see a couple wild manatees on a trip to Florida.

And when I say wild, I mean it. They were in the water but they had on funny hats and were twerking. I think they'd been drinking.

ROLF

From Rainman, of course.

They are far from unusual. Go anywhere near a power plant when the water gets under 70 degrees they will be piled up like cord wood at the warm water outlets ... usually starving because they eat all the grass available by Christmas.

When you are at the bottom of a hole, stop digging.

Exactly. The power going off is a normal thing. The flood was what they were not prepared for, on the beach, in a tsunami zone. Whodathunkit?

You do understand, that if anyone is hurt by a nuclear accident at any US nuclear plant, they are responsible for their problems. The government has absolved the power companies of any responsibility for such damage. If they are so safe, why don't the power companies pay for appropriate insurance?

It's all about deep pockets, slip-n-fall democrats and gullible juries. Get it?

That's what we say after most "accidents" like this. What just happened at Boeing, for example? The hotel that collapsed in New Orleans? Everything is obvious in 20-20 hindsight. I have no problem with using more nuclear power, but I would limit it to areas as far as way from populated areas as reasonably possible. Solar I would put in NYC or LA. A nuke? Never anywhere near it. And nuclear isn't cheap, with solar costs getting more competitive, it and wind sure look better to me for the portion of demand it can be used for. There is also the risk today of a deliberate terrorist attack on a nuclear plant to cause a disaster. Solar, not so much.

I imagine we are going to find out the contractor rushed the concrete in NOLA, that has nothing to do with building a nuke plant in a place where the failure was predictable other than both being gross negligence. It does call into question, who bribed the inspector or who decided to pour the next floor without an inspection. (it may not have even been required there).

Solar is a part time solution. You still need 100% generation capacity for cloudy days and at night. That is the flaw in 100% reimbursement schemes like they have in California. They are not charging the customer for the infrastructure.

Ask the folks in California how suing their power company into bankruptcy is working out for them. Just don't try to call them on the phone, the battery is dead and they can't charge them in the dark.

Just like your claim about $0.50/kwh electricity, the claim that solar installations aren't charged for the infrastructure is just plain incorrect. Even those that generate more than they consume over an annual period pay a monthly infrastructure fee to the utility.

And, fyi, the baseline rate for electricity is around $0.23/kwh; it increases by a few cents per tier for usage above baseline, but never reaches $0.50/kwh for the vast majority of households. Vast, vast, vast.

Ok, so you have this irrational hatred of a state you don't even live in, and likely have never visited. Noted. Pretty much everything you state as a fact about California is wrong anyway.

Note also that in the recent public safety power shutoff, less than two percent (T.W.O.) of the state residents were affected. And all the blame can be attributed directly on the utility for paying dividends to shareholders rather than investing in the infrastructure. Greed, in other words.

Perhaps you might find Mark Benihofs latest essay eddifying?

What investment in infrastructure would have eliminated the need for shutting off the power? Clear cut thousands of feet around all the power lines and spray it all with vegetation killer frequently do nothing can grow? I can't see that happening in CA. I suppose they could plant it with something green and pump the dwindling water supply to it to keep it green. Sounds very expensive and impractical, not something a dividend payment would cover.

So NBC is selling fake news again. They make it sound like the whole state is blacked out. I know my friend up north is still bitching about the food she had to throw away.

So actually returning some of the profit to the investors is a horrible thing? Why else would a 401k invest in a boondoggle like a power company in California unless they thought they would make money? For some reason you people just assume stock holders are all fat cats in limos twirling their mustache when the reality is, most of the market is held by annuities, pension plans, mutual funds and insurance companies. Do you really think you would pay the necessary rate hike to update the infrastructure?

BTW we do have a "storm charge" on our bills that does exactly that. I still pay 11 cents. (bottom line)

Never heard of it.

That may be true in CA, it's not true in most states. So, what is the typical monthly infrastructure fee for a house with solar in CA and what is it based on? I bet it's not close to the real cost.

Yikes, 23 cents is almost twice what I pay in NJ and it's not just the base rate, it is *the rate* here.