60 Minutes Wyoming Green Energy Segment
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
Westelker
Well-known member
I
I just checked the web, France gets 68% and Slovakia gets 54% of there electricity from nuclear power. I don't think they have had any catastrophic failures. The design of nuclear power plants are a lot safer these days then they were back in the Chornobyl days.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Yes, but that is probably the result of regulations and equals higher cost. Chernobyl wasn't that old and the US has a lot of operating nuclear plants that started in the 70's and 80's and are probably older. I have never really understood the anti-nuclear view, but when stuff goes wrong at a nuclear plant it goes really wrong.
Westelker
Well-known member
Regarding Russian designs in general they are chit!! The Chornobyl accident was no surprise. Their military and civilian aircraft, liquid rocket engines and solid rocket motor designs are far below our lowest standards. As you stated their regulations may have been met; but, they most likely were way below are standards.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Good, fast, or cheap...pick two. I guess we know which ones Russia picked. Fukushima seems to be when a lot of the most recent anti-nuclear stuff started.
jryoung
Well-known member
I remember hearing a bit on Marketplace years ago when Fukushima happened. It was around why the US doesn't have more nuclear power and one of the key obstacles was lobbying from the existing plants in operation that would lose out to the efficiencies of a new plant and their proverbial cash cow would dry up. I wish I could find that bit now and do a bit more digging, i'm always fascinated by the way the world works outside headlines.
Westelker
Well-known member
If we had a one party government, we could do it! And, I bet I know which party it would be to build the nuclear plants.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
My mom's highschool buddy is a author, his book is worth a read. He gives a great history of nuclear energy and dives into how a lot of the issues stem from the arms race, etc.
I think part of the issue is that in those countries nuclear power is government operated. Three Mile Island was a private company that cut corners, similarly there were issues with the privately owned Yankee design plants in the NE.
There has never been an issue with a US government reactor, for instance our nuclear navy has never had an incident. Perhaps that's part of the solution having public stations. The TVA has already gotten that ball rolling.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
The Slmpsons probably did more harm to @VikingsGuy wet dream than Fukushima.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Totally off topic, sorta, but I don't understand why all of our basic utilities aren't gov't ran. Not necessarily at a federal level but at a local level. Our PUD is excellent for power, fiber, and water/waste water (where it's provided). We get local control, profits are pumped back into your system that you jointly own with the rest of your community. The focus is on customer owned value vs maximizing profits for shareholders.
But apparently it's pretty common around the rest of the country to have private companies in charge of utilities?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
i always assumed they all largely functioned like Xcel Energy, a hybrid, a regulated monopoly overseen by some sort of government commission. are there ones that are truly 100% autonomous private?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
IDK
Investor-owned utilities in the United States - Wikipedia
IDK
It doesn't mean they don't have to comply with regulation, but they're out for profit not general welfare.Investor-owned utilities in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
i mean, yeah, they're out for profit, but with some big sidebars thrown up. at least in colorado, xcel can't generate profit on rates, but can on capital expense, but that extra is still determined by regulators, theoretically. it certainly isn't a runaway profit machine, but no doubt, they look for ways to twist the rules for profit.
Is Xcel Energy making too much money? Colorado voters could get the chance to decide
The Independence Institute, a Libertarian-leaning think tank, has proposed a ballot initiative to return revenue from Colorado's largest monopoly utility company.
www.cpr.org
Like many other states, Colorado grants Xcel Energy and other utility companies the exclusive right to deliver electricity or natural gas inside a defined service territory. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission then regulates those companies to provide low-cost, safe services aligned with the "economic, environmental and social values" of the state, according to its mission statement.
The so-called "regulated utility" model also sets strict limits on when a company can charge ratepayers. It allows companies to recover operating expenses like staff salaries and office rents, but it can't collect an additional profit.
The situation is different when utilities charge customers for capital expenses, like new power plants or transmission lines. In those cases, utilities can recover the cost of the project plus an extra percentage determined by regulators. Those profits later become earnings for the company's shareholders.
Joe Pereira, the deputy director of the Colorado Office of the Utility Consumer Advocate, said the model creates what's called a "capital bias."
"Basically, what it says is the only two ways for a utility to make money is to cut costs or to build stuff," Pereira said.
Keep on
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2021
- Messages
- 1,442
There are all kinds of different ways electricity is delivered and generated in this country.
There are regulated utilities, unregulated, co-ops, etc.
My state is unregulated, meaning you can choose your generation supplier by cost, but the delivery lines are still regulated. It's mostly been a scheme where middleman wholesalers make money for nothing. But they lobbied and claimed savings to the customers.
It's a tough question as to whether utilities are better off being a government function. Usually that will lead to poor performance and inefficiency, imo.
Unfortunately no two parts of the country do power generation the same.
In the NE, PJM handles electric generation and transmission. Power producers get capacity payments as well as sale price for their generation. Texas is on the ERCOT system, they get no capacity payments but see absolutely wild swings in power prices during weather events. Most of the SE is still using regulated utilities like Southern and Duke.
So short answer is, it's a mess and all different by region and state.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
For the past 20 years, I've had 2 energy providers. One was a small co-op, and now with Northwestern Energy. Northwestern is, inspite of what @SAJ-99 will try to tell you, a very good provider. The co-op had its issues.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Why am I being brought into this? I have never said a bad word about Northwestern Energy. I may have pointed out that Coal City cleanup is going to be an expensive mess. I have Avista and we are all going to chip in for that one. Clean coal and all that BS.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
But yes, Ben Lamb's guy could go to YVEC and tell them he could give them endless energy and they would say "No thanks, we are going to stick with coal".
Irrelevant
Well-known member
My counter is that you need less of a stick if there's no incentive to make a profit, you just might- hold your breath - do what's right without the threat of regulation.
They delivery safe drinking water, with a multitude of redundancies that far exceed the regulatory requirements, to ensure that safety and reliability, because it's the right thing to do. Because we the customers request it, and because it turns out it's not that much more expensive if you don't have to make money for shareholders.
But clearly Flint didn't feel the same. So I shouldn't paint such a rosy picture with such a broad brush.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Damn SAJ-99! Your hammering that gob of power bait I tossed out to you!
Similar threads
