Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 02:09pm PT
|
Karl,
I think one thing you are leaving out when you confidently believe that 'all the money tied up in nukes' has the influence you believe it does is the NRC...
As I said previously, the NRC has 2 resident inspectors at every site in the US. Their only job is to dig into the weeds to ensure that the CFRs are abided by following procedures, specifications, and codes made specifically to adress every detail... That the nukes do what they say their gonna do, to the "T"... What they are required by federal law to do. In fact, Roger Hannah, spokesman for the commission, said recently, "We look at whether they are they following procedures. Are their procedures detailed enough to allow them to do the things they need to do? Are operators trained well? Are pieces of equipment that are needed operating well? Are they inspected and maintained? Plants are subject to strict regulations, daily inspections by resident inspectors and other periodic inspections."
The NRC reports directly to the President, and can care less if a utility ever generates 1 watt of electricity... They are only concerned with ensuring that the public is protected. There have been several plants accross the US that have not been allowed to start back up throughout the years, some down for over 2 years at a time, until findings are addressed. This costs the utilities hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue, as well as additional hundreds of millions spent to achieve what is needed to start back up. There are people sitting in Federal Prisons who wilfully falsified documents, substatial fines have been levied against utilities who have had major findings. They take it seriously. There are nukes that NEVER went online and were abandoned (no fuel ever onsite) due to all required by the NRC, and, as decades pass, the requirements change for the stricter, and I believe that's a GOOD thing... The events in Japan will be looked at in detail to see what can be applied here, and things will likely change for the better. In fact, we have altready been directed to look at and verify many things, and we have just 1 week left to do it, although direction came from EPRI.
I'll say it again, because it is important to understand... The NRC can care less if a nuke ever generates 1 watt of electricity, or ends up bakrupting a utility... They only care about the safety of the public, and the 2 resident inspectors (Government Employees) at every site looks VERY HARD at everything. It is also a federal crime to lie to, or intentionally mislead the NRC.
Lastly... It is just not the culture to 'cut corners' at a nuke... At a miinimum, you get fired, access pulled so no more nukes, and since 'cutting corners' requires 'willful' misrepresentation, they can also go to jail. If someone lies to me about a job they did, they can go to jail. Plus, there is a detailed procedure for EVERYTHING... Even how to paint a hand-rail, including but not limited to, the type of paint (with associated lab verified chemistry paperwork), how long the paint must be stirred, temps for applying paint, surface condition, how thick to apply, how much overlap between brush strokes, etc... For more complex or critical evolutions, the procedures are even more in depth... With sign-offs (BTW, signing for somehting not done per procedure is a federal crime) along the way, and QC Hold Points, where they have to call me or one of my colleagues to verify somehting before they can continue.
Almost everyone could deduce they low balled the severity ranking of the incident. Ummm, as I pointed out, I stated this WEEKS ago when they put it at a 5, as it was clearly a 6 then, and I believe it will end up a 6 when all is said and done. That said, I have no problem with them failing conservative, and calling it a 7 until they verify otherwise. The health of the public comes first, not saving face.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 02:40pm PT
|
Adam, I don't think we have been too concerned that proceedures aren't being followed at plants.
I'll say it again, because it is important to understand... The NRC can care less if a nuke ever generates 1 watt of electricity, or ends up bakrupting a utility... They only care about the safety of the public, and the 2 resident inspectors (Government Employees) at every site looks VERY HARD at everything. It is also a federal crime to lie to, or intentionally mislead the NRC.
It's probably closer to say that the NRC cares that nuclear has any future at all, they care about their continued existance and can't be expect to campaign for the end of nuclear power even if it has extensive protections and procedures (which many of us believe wouldn't be enough in a japan-level emergency) People who work for the NRC have obvious stakes and interests in Nuclear and we can't expect them to pull the plug.
and that's what I'm talking about, pulling the plug. We don't know if the Japan plant was following all it's procedures or not, or if a US standards plant would have withstood the quake and tsunami but there seems to be every chance the outcome would be the same.
At this point it's important to note that Diablo Canyon's nuke plant, built on the ocean next to a fault or two, was designed for 40 years and has been a shoe-in for extending their license. How safe do we really know it is? Do geologists REALLY know what the maximum shake an earthquake could rock on that place. I doubt it. Particularly when in Japan last week a 7.1 aftershock put far more earth in motion that geologists anticipated from such a quake
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 02:56pm PT
|
Jstan
What does facebook have to do with it. You can watch Gunderson's videos directly from his site at
http://www.fairewinds.com/
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 03:10pm PT
|
John had previously posted some observations that I have time to at least try and address from my perspective since it’s my day off. First of all, I am not a reactor expert. However, I am managing construction of two very large Category 3 Nuclear Facilities at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation that will process highly radioactive waste (plus I am responsible for all the utilities including the Emergency power). In that capacity, and through 25 years of experience I hope to at least give you a 101 version of how facility design is determined.
10 CFR 830 Table 1 characterizes nuclear facilities based upon their potential for off-site consequences so that a reactor would be Category 1 – Potential for Significant Off-site Consequences. My facilities would only have “local significant consequences”. (In fact hazards from common industrial chemicals such as ammonia exceed any radiological hazard in my facilities). However, the process of developing the safety features and controls for my facilities is very similar among all Hazard categories so my responses to John are not meant to defend the Nuclear Industry, but rather to offer up some information on how the process works (at least for Defense related Facilities).
...We planned for a large earthquake.. Oops.. not that large.
Who could have forsaw such a large Tsunami?.. oh.. I don't know. maybe the people who put the rocks in place.
All nuclear facilities (and dangerous chemical facilities) are evaluated such that they can be put into a “safe mode” in the event of a natural disaster (earth quakes, tsunami, etc). For example, at Hanford, we have engaged the USGS Volcano experts to try and predict the amount of ashfall that may be produced and then land on our site in the event of another eruption like Mt. St. Helens. As John and Adam pointed out, Japan did not adequately “bound” the magnitude of the natural disasters. This point must be clarified as I believe that this (obviously) is a weakness in the Japanese System. At Hanford, our Nuclear Safety group is Autonomous and will review and reach out to the experts (ie: USGS, USACE, private industry consultants) to come up with the magnitude of the event. This is reviewed by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB)
http://www.dnfsb.gov/index.php
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is an independent federal agency established by Congress in 1988. The Board's mandate under the atomic Energy act is to provide safety oversight of the nuclear weapons complex operated by the Department of Energy (DOE). The nuclear weapons program remains a complex and hazardous operation. DOE must maintain readiness of the nuclear arsenal, dismantle surplus weapons, dispose of excess radioactive materials, clean up surplus facilities, and construct new facilities for many purposes. The constant vigilance of the Board is required to ensure that all of these activities are carried out by DOE in a manner that provides adequate protection for the public, workers, and the environment.
The DNFSB has some very educated and experienced people whose sole job is to oversee the design /construct/operation of a safe facility operated by DOE. (See Adam’s info on the NRC). As an example, they will haggle with DOE over exponents in equations that may be used to model dispersion of radioactive materials etc. etc. They always take a conservative approach. They have no responsibility for cost and schedule they are all about safety and they are independent from DOE. Also keep in mind that we are building one-of-a-kind facilities so there is a lot of ground breaking engineering and technical analysis. In other words, we commonly face situations that have not been encountered before and we must ask ourselves "what-if?".
When some concurrence is reached on the “bounded event”, that is where the design engineers come in to design a facility to meet the “design basis event” (DBE). Early on in this thread, people wanted to blame the engineers for the Japanese failure. The design engineers did not make the mistake here. Think of it this way, you buy a car that has been designed to protect you in a collision with a brick wall at 35 MPH and you are well aware of this safety criteria. You hit the brick wall at 70 MPH and die. Is it the engineers fault?
I believe we will learn that at least one flaw in Japan is mainly due to their oversight agency that (obviously) did not account for the magnitude of the natural disaster. This agency (whoever they are in Japan), must be independent and must have the authority to invoke more strict DBE’s and or revoke licenses without fear of reprisal (Karl mentioned valid concerns with regards to the political power of Electrical Companies). While the original Nuclear Safety Engineers may have done a good job, if their management chain is TEPCO, then their authority is limited. Early on in this thread I also posted it is not “Werner’s” lab coats, it is the managers who are to blame. Cost and schedule is the decision makers’ metrics for success and even a feeble mind can determine that increased safety can result in increased cost. This is also why the NRC and DNFSB, EPA, OSHA and others are independent. (Hint: if your politicians cut funding for these efforts there will be less effective oversight).
So John, yes in fact the guys who put the rocks up on the hill obviously knew something and it would be wise to heed the ancient advice. While this discussion on Nuclear Power is good, keep in mind that this incident could have been avoided, with relatively minor costs (compared to the Cleanup), in the design of the plant by recognizing the potential for a much larger Tsunami. This may sound obvious, but it is critically important if you are to debate whether Nuclear Power is an option. The obvious point here is that this could have been prevented through a more conservative approach to safety engineering (yeah, I know hindisght is 20-20). When Adam is so inquisitive with regards to the TEPCO Plant layout, he is trying to learn from that event so that he can compare against his own facility, I am pretty certain that is the behavior that we would expect from someone in the industry.
I spent 10 years dealing with safety and the Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals. I studied all types of events for lessons learned and not surprisingly, many of you have already pegged many including inattention to detail, a lacksadaisical attitude, poor management, cost, schedule and in the event of the first space shuttle disaster a poor safety culture all the way through.
.. You keep saying. Well.. other things like driving and chemical plants are also dangerous. And I keep saying, but not in the same way, with potentially very long term consequences.
John, the long term consequences are terrible. I agree. The only point that I am trying to make here is that there are all manner of things going on in our lives that we do not identify with risks and therefore we leave them out of the equation. If you are one of the 13,000 who die every year from Coal Fired Power plants (American Lung Association) does it really matter about the long term radioactive contamination of an event in Japan?
Plus.. and this is the biggie.. the nuclear industry doesn't get an.. oops... Not one. Or don't you understand that?
I totally get that. Again, if a chemical/coal/traffic oops kills you and your family, then that is also one oops too many and those oops are so common that we as a society accept that risk because it is familiar. And I know that the consequences of a nuclear oops can be far more reaching (time and distance) of a chemical or coal oops. At our facilities, we have gone to tremendous lengths to make the facilities safe. I once worked at a plant that made Sulfuric acid that was owned and Operated by the (Conservative) KOCH Industries.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
The plant was built in the 1940’s, and was such a nightmare for the workers and environment that I quit within 4 weeks. Acid dripping out of pipes, high pH in the effluent pond with dead fish and turtles floating. The place was a disaster. I remember one old guy filling a tanker truck with “fuming” sulfuric acid (Oleum). No respirator and he was hanging on to the hose hacking and coughing. He said,” I must have a sore throat today!” I walked away shaking my head...
The letter Karl received from the Senator was basically saying. Well, we do things better then the Japanese.. Really??????
I believe that there are things we do better, for example there is the NRC to look out for safety at Nuclear facilities.
On the other hand, I doubt very much that a letter from a member of congress would make me feel better about anything unless I was looking to get screwed.
Sorry for such a long post with obvious information...
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 03:26pm PT
|
It's probably closer to say that the NRC cares that nuclear has any future at all, they care about their continued existance and can't be expect to campaign for the end of nuclear power even if it has extensive protections and procedures (which many of us believe wouldn't be enough in a japan-level emergency) People who work for the NRC have obvious stakes and interests in Nuclear and we can't expect them to pull the plug.
Wrong, Karl... The NRC doesn't just oversee comercial nuclear power plants, as they also oversee ALL nuclear material in the US. Like, medical (tracers, therapy, etc), industrial (smoke detectors, radiographic sources, tritium gunsights and watch dials, radioactive level indicators, etc), to name just a few. So they would still have a job if a nuke or 50 were to go offline.
So, curious... Considering this, does that change your stance even a little bit? I would bet, "no". Am I right?
...if a US standards plant would have withstood the quake and tsunami but there seems to be every chance the outcome would be the same.
The SIGNIFICANT differences have been discussed, in detail, many times in this thread, so either you are ignoring it, or have just summarily dismissed it outright.
At this point it's important to note that Diablo Canyon's nuke plant, built on the ocean next to a fault or two, was designed for 40 years and has been a shoe-in for extending their license. How safe do we really know it is? Do geologists REALLY know what the maximum shake an earthquake could rock on that place. I doubt it. Please, tell me the design basis parameters of Diablo, and also, the differences between it an the plants in Fuke. It is relevant to your question, AND, I honestly believe if you take the time to answer just those two questions, you will even get you answer(s).
Now, if you think that all nukes (104 units) in the US should go off-line immediately, and a reason they don't/won't is because the NRC needs those 104 units to justify their existance... I don't think that would really warrant a response.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 04:24pm PT
|
I understand we're stuck with our current nuke plants and am basically resisting the planned renaissance in building them because I feel they are the wrong direction to put our money, risk and technology.
As I wrote before, if all the safety and goodness the advocates write about them is true, let them insure themselves and finance their own construction without the 36 billion in loan guarantees that Obama wants to give them. I appreciate the time and effort that Golsen just spent above and Adam too but I'm finding I'm spending too much time on this thread and haven't managed to line up much work for myself for the season and my own loss control is going to move me to other subjects because rightly or wrongly, this japanese disaster effectively puts nuclear on hold in this country.
Whatever risks the engineers think they can plan for, they can't really and that's why plants that can't mess up a whole order of magnatude beyond coal and gas are needed, even if they are less "efficient" when you don't factor 2000 years of waste management and decommissioning plus risk.
Why can't they, for one thing, we can't know the economy of the future, whether we will be able to afford to meet the demands of our technology and we don't know future threats now. Can engineers of 40 year ago or even today know what sort of weaponry Iraq will have 40 years from now when they're pissed what we did to their country (Like Iran got pissed after the Shah we installed fell?) Not to mention other bizaare natural phenomena (Pole Shift, Massive Solar flares, Whatever)
We just don't need the axe of death hanging over our head as we decide where our money goes looking down the road at non-renewable energy depletion. I know that Nuclear could be a helpful bridge technology to get us to something better and know our energy situation is dire. Problem is 10s of billions poured into nuclear remove economies of scale we could have with Solar, Wind, Chicken (and other) sh#t, Tides and whatever else, not to mention conservation.
The people have seen Japan and will now say No, so let's get used to it and plan aggressively for a nuke-free future as oil and gas become increasingly scarce.
If we do a good job, we'll have technology we can export to the rest of the world and have a robust economy from it. If we export nukes to the world, we'll just get proliferation and face it, you're already admitting the rest of the world can't be trusted because it was a US design that one of the richest, smartest nations of the world couldn't keep safe
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 04:25pm PT
|
Quote myself for emphasis
As I wrote before, if all the safety and goodness the advocates write about them is true, let them insure themselves and finance their own construction without the 36 billion in loan guarantees that Obama wants to give them.
Sounding like a Republican here don't I. Why don't they seem to have this philosophy when it comes to nukes? It's only seniors and poor people that need to insure themselves and not need handouts eh?
Peace
Karl
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 04:29pm PT
|
Wow, golsen... Very well worded. You are much more articulate than I am.
I especially like:
While the original Nuclear Safety Engineers may have done a good job, if their management chain is TEPCO, then their authority is limited. Early on in this thread I also posted it is not “Werner’s” lab coats, it is the managers who are to blame. Cost and schedule is the decision makers’ metrics for success and even a feeble mind can determine that increased safety can result in increased cost. This is also why the NRC and DNFSB, EPA, OSHA and others are independent. As this is the same thing that happened at NASA regarding the Challenger disaster, as even engineers raised concerns that were ignored by management. Feynman even highlighted this in his appendix, which he required to be included in the final Commission report he was a part of or he would not sign it.
I'm not an engineer, but I believe that there is a "safety margin" (10%?) added to all designs to ensure that they meet or exceed the design... At least there is here in the US, when designing, bridges, buildings, planes, nukes, etc...
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 04:36pm PT
|
Karl, ...let them insure themselves and finance their own construction... Just finance, 101... How does a utility worth ~$9 billion finance a project that costs ~$14 billion?
Same goes for renewables... As super large solar arrays and infrastructure to the grid will cost lots of $$$, and that should get the same gob'ment help.
Personally, I think the generation, grid, and distribution should all be nationalized, as that would take the 'profit margins' out of the mix.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 04:39pm PT
|
Just finance, 101... How does a utility worth ~$9 billion finance a project that costs ~$14 billion?
Banks? Isn't that what the private sector financiers do? How does a teacher worth $30,000 buy a $200,000 house?
But I agree we'll need public financing for energy now and in the future. Let's give the money to the safest, more efficient, cleanest technology when ALL the costs and risk are considered
Peace
karl
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 04:48pm PT
|
I don't think it's that easy, Karl... I don't think banks like to loan billions of dollars to companies who aren't at least worth more than the amount borrowed, IF there is a substancial chance that there will be cost over-runs and cannot be garunteed to finish and get online, to be able to repay the loan... Remember, the NRC holds the keys, NOT the bank or the Utility.
...the safest, more efficient, cleanest technology ... Curious, Karl... What technology would you say is the safest, most efficient, cleanest, AND 'reliable' (generating LOTS of electricity 100% of the time, rain, sleet, snow, nighttime)?
Personally, I think Combined Cycle GT's fit the bill, although they are not entirely green, they do use a resource we have in abundance. But this would require substancial infrastructure improvements (to supply the natural gas) to replace coal. They can also use biodiesel, and even syngas made from coal, used tires (I inspected a research plant in SoCal back in the early 90's that was experimenting with this), or any other source rich in hyrdocarbons. Now, add in carbon sequestration, and.....
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 05:05pm PT
|
I think Karl has hit on the metric that needs to be met for us even to consider pursuing nuclear. If investors are unwilling to invest and make taxpayer loan guarantees unnecessary, then the power companies have not made a very convincing case. Adam's comment above points up many of the weaknesses in the power company case.
As for the argument that federal oversight on rates for power causes investor return to be inadequate to justify the financial risk, I think there is an answer. During the war consumers were allowed to buy only so many gallons of gas a month. There was not enough gas to go around just as there is not enough power to go around now. There needs to be a much more realistic higher rate put on consumers and industries that use large amounts of power. Those costs will feed in to product costs, and realistically they should feed in. A very substantial portion of these returns should go to support both nuclear and sustainable power development.
Now I think it apparent sustainable power, whatever that technology, will have a much longer future than will nuclear. That will, and should, feed into investment decisions. Whether for thirty years or fifty years we need to consider nuclear to be transitional.
The fact power companies are applying to have their operating licenses extended years before their present licenses expire tells us the power companies agree nuclear is transitional and the outlook is downward. In that environment the drive for wringing profits from obsolete facilities will be substantial.
Therein lies a great danger.
Rules, regulations, protocols reduce risk. They don't make them zero. And if there is one thing humans are it good at, it is gaming the system.
You can count on it.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 05:11pm PT
|
There needs to be a much more realistic higher rate put on consumers and industries that use large amounts of power. Agreed... I said this weeks ago, that there needs to be a realistic higher rate for energy used above a certain base rate/amount for consumers, as that will give them insentive to conserve, as if they do not, then they would pay substantially more than those who do.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 06:07pm PT
|
Agreed on the last two posts. And, even for government haters, there should be a requirement to pour the extra money created into sustainable power investments.
Peak Oil and Gas is still the silent elephant in the room. When it really hits, people will cry for energy at almost any risk or dirtiness. We really need to make future investments now while we have energy and money to do so. That's why I'm concerned with the economies of scale in technologies that are underfunded now but could get cheaper with 36 billion dollars of commitment under their belt
Peace
Karl
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 06:56pm PT
|
In a way we are back where we were in 1935 when the Rural Electrification Administration was created.
From:http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm
"Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation's consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.
The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government's involvement in the public utilities industry.
In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley. In his 1935 article "Electrifying the Countryside," Morris Cooke, the head of the REA, stated that
In addition to paying for the energy he used, the farmer was expected to advance to the power company most or all of the costs of construction. Since utility company ideas as to what constituted sound rural lines have been rather fancy, such costs were prohibitive for most farmers."
End of excerpt
Recently if we had spent less on wars and more on things such as this...................
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 07:03pm PT
|
Recently if we had spent less on wars and more on things such as this...........
Amen, there's little will to change our economic model away from the military industrial complex.
Think of it, Worldwide enduring Peace would sink this nation's economy.
And god only knows how deep we are. Is it our military that keeps the dollar the reserve currency and lets us go into deep debt with impunity?
Interesting times ahead
Karl
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 07:05pm PT
|
Economics 101 was always if the economy needs to get up and running start a war ......
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 07:39pm PT
|
Thanks Adam.
Werner illustrates yet another problem with our political environment...
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 09:40pm PT
|
//Just finance, 101... How does a utility worth ~$9 billion finance a project that costs ~$14 billion?
//
and
//I don't think it's that easy, Karl... I don't think banks like to loan billions of dollars to companies who aren't at least worth more than the amount borrowed, IF there is a substancial chance that there will be cost over-runs and cannot be garunteed to finish and get online, to be able to repay the loan.
//
That is why Wall Street exists. To raise capital for expensive and risky ventures, that have a reasonably high probability of high payoffs out in the future. If you can't finance it with private money it is because your business plan sucks. And in the case of nuclear, they suck big time. Let alone the cost of construction, operations, and long term storage (really really long) for used fuel, verses the likely revenue stream; There is the much bigger problem of liability if something goes wrong. Lets say 1% chance of a level 7 nuclear accident at any given facility. And whats the economic loss of say 30 miles square of evacuations and uninhabitable land into the infinite future? Hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars I reckon (back of the envelope there - don't hold me to it). Wall Street runs the numbers, factors in a huge risk premium, and says no thanks. They're pretty smart people.
Of course if you get some really smart lawyers involved they can structure the deal so that all profits go to shareholders and when/if things go south the public will pickup the cleanup costs as the subsidiary simply declares bankruptcy and walks away from the mess.
(or you get the government to backstop the whole deal, then your cost of capital goes way down and your profits go way up. Those expensive lobbyists sure pay for themselves. Sweet how smooth our whole system works.)
|
|
Fritz
Trad climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 10:20pm PT
|
Wonderful.
This has turned back into a debate, rather than a name-calling session.
I give points to Karl and agree with Jstan re:
I think Karl has hit on the metric that needs to be met for us even to consider pursuing nuclear. If investors are unwilling to invest and make taxpayer loan guarantees unnecessary, then the power companies have not made a very convincing case. Adam's comment above points up many of the weaknesses in the power company case.
and re. rrradam's post: Agreed... I said this weeks ago, that there needs to be a realistic higher rate for energy used above a certain base rate/amount for consumers, as that will give them insentive to conserve, as if they do not, then they would pay substantially more than those who do.
Idaho Power, the main utility in S.W. Idaho, imposed a triple-tiered rate system last year: to punish “energy-hogs”. I get punished with higher rates for living in a rural area without natural gas for heat or cooking, for having a well, and for using electricity: to run a booster pump to water my 5 acres.
My energy-hog power bill is up substantially.
My rural electrical needs are billed the same as someone living in an apartment in Boise, and are subject to monetary punishment for exceeding what an apartment dweller might use monthly in kilowatt-hours.
When we "electricity hogs" in Idaho start using less, then Idaho Power can make some “real-money” selling excess electricity to California utility companies.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!