Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Dec 15, 2017 8:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Aug 19, 2013 9:58 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Jul 22, 2009 12:44 am
Posts: 4
http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/07/24/383 ... er-san-on/

When prices go up, somebody is getting more money...

Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 19, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
no prices are going up because your capital spinning reserves are not producing power at the same rate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 19, 2013 11:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
Ida-Russkie wrote:
no prices are going up because your capital spinning reserves are not producing power at the same rate.
Ida,
Is that
"no prices" are going up, or
"No. Prices are going up"?

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 18, 2014 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3351
Location: Alabama
Post-Onofre power grid may cost $2.3B

Quote:
Beefing up the transmission grid would ensure new profits for California utilities including San Onofre operator Southern California Edison and minority owner SDG&E.

California utilities earn the bulk of their profits through a set rate of return on investments in distribution and transmission infrastructure. On transmission assets, SDG&E earns an authorized 11.3 percent rate of return on its investors’ equity, set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 18, 2014 6:36 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Jul 22, 2009 12:44 am
Posts: 4
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Post-Onofre power grid may cost $2.3B

Quote:
Beefing up the transmission grid would ensure new profits for California utilities including San Onofre operator Southern California Edison and minority owner SDG&E.

California utilities earn the bulk of their profits through a set rate of return on investments in distribution and transmission infrastructure. On transmission assets, SDG&E earns an authorized 11.3 percent rate of return on its investors’ equity, set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.



Let's see... $2.3B * 11.3% is $260,000,000 per year. There are about 3.1M people or roughly 1.4M households in San Diego County which might be expected to pay for this. That's about $180 per household per year. Call it $15/month/household indefinitely into the future flowing from citizens into SDG&E executive pockets with a small cut to the investors due to this one nuclear plant shutdown. That's how criminals get rich these days. The really skilled criminals convince their victims that they wanted it this way all along. We're protecting you from the evils of radiation :) Be happy.

Chris


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 19, 2014 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
or is that how you cover a monumental engineering screw up?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 19, 2014 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 496
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
or is that how you cover a monumental engineering screw up?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Feb 23, 2014 2:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 03, 2011 7:50 pm
Posts: 99
Location: Rhinebeck, NY
The guaranteed profit rate depends on whither you are meeting a need or meeting a policy. The rate for policy is even higher.

So, if we can get the state to issue a policy calling for thorium MSRs the investor owned utilities will jump on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 14, 2014 5:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Newport Beach, CA
UC Berkely Haas has a paper out examining the impact of the SONGS shutdown on the state energy market. Definitely worth a read.

http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/working ... /WP248.pdf

Key points:
1) Virtually all of the replacement supply came from natural gas
2) Grid limitations prevented use of lower marginal cost production outside of the service area (i.e. renewables & hydro outside of SoCal)
3) ~$370 million increase in direct electricity costs due to the closure
4) Increased annual CO2 emissions of 9.2 million tons (~2 million extra cars on the road)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 01, 2014 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Is there any logic in saying that San Onofre suffered a near miss (narrowly avoided a major accident) ?
I'm not saying I believe this is true, but rather consulting with my far more knowledgeable nuclear experts.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 02, 2014 12:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 07, 2008 2:53 pm
Posts: 50
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
I don’t believe so. At no time was there a chance of a LOCA, Loss Of Coolant Accident, with the steam generators. The main technical problem was that at power rates over about 70% tubes in the steam generators would vibrate causing wear , and leaks. When one leaked the reactor had to be shut down, and the tube plugged. As tubes were taken out of service, power would have to be reduced more.
If the plant were put back into service at 70% of rated output it could have been run until some time in the future when new steam generators could be built then installed, but the anti-nucs using politics made that impossible, so the plant was shut down.

_________________
Mike Swift
Although environmental groups say we must reduce CO2 to prevent global warming they can never mention the “N” word as part of the solution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 20, 2014 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 18, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 66
State Approves Edison’s San Onofre Settlement
Thursday, November 20, 2014
The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday approved a settlement between utilities, led by Southern California Edison, and ratepayer advocates over who should pay for the more than $4.7 billion in costs to date for shutting down the troubled San Onofre nuclear power plant.

Under the settlement, ratepayers of Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric will pay $3.3 billion over 10 years to cover the shutdown costs. These include the purchase of replacement power after the nuclear plant was taken offline in January 2012 due to leaks and alleged design flaws in tubes of a newly-installed steam generator.

However, the utilities and their shareholders will also hand over $1.4 billion in refunds and credits to ratepayers for shutdown-related costs the ratepayers have already been charged. These costs include charges for the new steam generator that were collected after the Jan. 2012 shutdown. As a result, shareholders of SCE parent Edison International in Rosemead will see a return of only 3 percent on their investment in the new steam generator.

Ratepayers may see even more money coming back to them, depending on the outcome of Southern California Edison’s lawsuit against Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Tokyo, which made the steam generator with the problem tubes. Under changes made this summer in the settlement agreement, any proceeds from the lawsuit will be split evenly between ratepayers and shareholders.

San Onofre has been jointly owned and operated by three utilities: Southern California Edison, which owns 78 percent; San Diego Gas & Electric, which owns 20 percent; and the city of Riverside’s utility, which owns the remaining 2 percent.

Representing ratepayer interests in the settlement talks were the Utility Reform Network and the Public Utilities Commission’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates.

Shares of Edison International fell 30 cents on Thursday to close at $62.25; however, shares had rallied over the last couple months, largely in anticipation of the settlement approval.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 21, 2014 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm
Posts: 187
From Rod Adams, if you want to see how painfully stupid this was. Used to live in San Diego, still have friends there.

http://atomicinsights.com/confident-response/

http://atomicinsights.com/mcswain-calcu ... 6-billion/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group