RegularChristian ==> I agree 100%, it is time for all ratepayers to seek EQUAL & FAIR rates from the CPUC, while at the same time getting them to enable US to install Solar (of all flavors) instead of JUST supporting more Big Energy Projects which keeps US in Energy Slavery...
Twells ==> Remember this is a PUBLIC MONOPOLY, ratepayer have no choice but to purchase Energy from the Utility, that is why there must be fair and equal access to the CPUC, instead of what we have now a cozy relationship with SCE's shareholders receiving record profits while ratepayers pay some of the highest energy rates in the USA!
Not only will the Region have enough Energy/Power without SanO, but I predict that by the CPUC making it easier for many more to install Solar (of all flavors), California will have a larger SURPLUS of Power than we do now and that is with San Onofre generating ZERO Energy/Power.
Face it the time to Decommission San Onofre is here and if we do so now then it will create a huge number of great decommissioning jobs while at the same time increase all property values because there will not be any RISK of future Nuclear accidents, like the one we almost had 1/31/12...
Not only will the Region have enough Energy/Power, but I predict that by the CPUC making it easier for many more to install Solar (of all flavors), California will have a larger SURPLUS of Power than we do now and that is without San Onofre generating ZERO Energy/Power.
Face it the time to Decommission San Onofre is here and if we do so now then it will create a huge number of great decommissioning jobs while at the same time increase property values because there will not be any risk of future Nuclear accidents!
AT Twells For ever opportunity the Industry has to make their case the CPUC should grant an equal period for those not in the Industry to also discuss their concerns, that is what equal representation is all about!
Both reports were authored by IRSN economist Patrick Momal, who struggled to explain away the differences. The new number, €430 billion, was based on a “median case” of radioactive releases, as was the case in Fukushima, he told the JDD, while the calculations of 2007 were based more on what happened at Chernobyl. But then he added that even the low end of the original report, the €760 billion, when updated with the impact on tourism and exports, would jump to €1 trillion.
REMEMBER:
California and/or the USA cannot afford a multiple Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima for any reason...
and
If I had a bit more time, I would suggest that the CPUC immediately increase the financial limits on who can now qualify for energy upgrades by 50% and then use SoCal as a test to see how much new Solar can be installed in the next 18 months using money that is already sitting in a CPUC holding account! The program administration costs should be capped at 12% unless a huge amount of new Solar (of all flavors) is added, as an inducement to get more done ASAP! BTW: Then if the number of new solar installations are really big then the need for the Peaker Plants will be ZERO... This is a perfect opportunity for the CPUC to challenge ratepayers and at the same time also enable them to make California become far more energy efficient.
Done properly, California should become an Energy Exporter by 2040 or sooner with ever more Solar (of all flavors) adding to our renewable mix for ratepayers that do not have Solar (of all flavors) to pick from. By insuring that every WATT generated earns the same amount of energy credit, regardless of whether it was generated by a home owner or a big Utility, everyone will receive the shortest possible payback from their new retrofit. As ever more Californians have surplus energy, more will seriously consider electric vehicles which will not only reduce smog but also reduce our independence on ever more expensive foreign oil or risky nuclear!
Please share with all the Commissioners and their financial auditors:
If I could have attended the CPUC meeting today in San Diego, this is what I would said:
French Nuclear Disaster Scenario Was So Bad The Government Kept It Secrethttp://www.businessinsider.com/potential-cost-of-a-nuclear-accident-so-high-its-a-secret-2013-3 via @bi_contributors snip Catastrophic nuclear accidents, like Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima No. 1 in 2011, are, we’re incessantly told, very rare, and their probability of occurring infinitesimal.
But when they do occur, they get costly. So costly that the French government, when it came up with cost estimates for an accident in France, kept them secret.
But now the report was leaked to the French magazine, Le Journal de Dimanche. Turns out, the upper end of the cost spectrum of an accident at the nuclear power plant at Dampierre, in the Department of Loiret in north-central France, amounted to over three times the country’s GDP.
Hence, the need to keep it secret. The study was done in 2007 by the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), a government agency under joint authority of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Environment, Industry, Research, and Health.With over 1,700 employees, it’s France’s “public service expert in nuclear and radiation risks.” This isn’t some overambitious, publicity-hungry think tank.
It evaluated a range of disaster scenarios that might occur at the Dampierre plant. In the best-case scenario, costs came to €760 billion—more than a third of France’s GDP. At the other end of the spectrum: €5.8 trillion! Over three times France’s GDP. A devastating amount. So large that France could not possibly deal with it. Yet, France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power. The entire nuclear sector is controlled by the state, which also owns 85% of EDF, the mega-utility that operates France’s 58 active nuclear reactors spread over 20 plants. So, three weeks ago, the Institute released a more politically correct report for public consumption. It pegged the cost of an accident at €430 billion.
“There was no political smoothening, no pressure,” claimed IRSN Director General Jacques Repussard, but he admitted, “it’s difficult to publish these kinds of numbers.” He said the original report with a price tag of €5.8 trillion was designed to counter the reports that EDF had fabricated, which “very seriously underestimated the costs of the incidents.”
We have gone from being told about a tiny (radioactive) leak at SanO over a year ago to now being stuck with a 1.3 Billion Dollar Debacle that SoCal ratepayers are still paying for at over 54 Million Dollars a month, with no end in sight!
Even the NRC and now subsets within the NRC like the NRR and others are still trying to understand exactly what happened to cause the damage which destroyed Unit 3's NEW steam generators in less than a year so that they can better evaluate the damage already done to Unit 2 steam generators.
Edison is desperate to restart using they're poorly in-house designed steam generators at any power level so that they can claim that all this is just "part of doing business" and that the ratepayers should pay for this debacle instead of Edison's shareholders who have had record profits the last few years while SoCal ratepayers have seen their electric bills move ever upward!
How bad does it has to GET, before SoCal ratepayers get a fair and unbiased investigation into why all the checks and balances set up to protect CA ratepayers HAVE FAILED TO WORK?
It is past time for this ENERGY RIP OFF to end, San Onofre should be taken off the rate base immediately and a full unbiased investigation begun with public access to all relevant documentation going back to the original "up-rate" decision that set the stage for doing the replacement steam generator program in the first place.
Until a REAL California LEADER steps forward and DEMANDS OPENNESS, SoCal ratepayers will continue to be subject to continued "energy enslavement" thanks to the too cozy relationship between the Utility and those that regulate them which has enabled the debacle to continue despite numerous attempts to sweep it under the rug and away from public scrutiny!
Now is the time for our Public Servants to step forward and actually perform their sworn duty by SERVING THE PUBLIC and do what is best for the ratepayers not JUST Edison's shareholders, even at the risk of some of them losing their Nuclear Payback*.
64° Overcast
San Onofre Operator Requests to Restart Reactor
Get ready for a news release (later today or tomorrow morning) from the DAB Safety that will blow holes in their latest restart plan!
More comments from the Patch about the restart discussion:
http://sanjuancapistrano.patch.com//a...
April 1, 2013 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
California Utility Commissioners Deliberate In Public And Private Meetings In San Diego
RegularChristian ==> I agree 100%, it is time for all ratepayers to seek EQUAL & FAIR rates from the CPUC, while at the same time getting them to enable US to install Solar (of all flavors) instead of JUST supporting more Big Energy Projects which keeps US in Energy Slavery...
March 23, 2013 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
California Utility Commissioners Deliberate In Public And Private Meetings In San Diego
Twells ==> Remember this is a PUBLIC MONOPOLY, ratepayer have no choice but to purchase Energy from the Utility, that is why there must be fair and equal access to the CPUC, instead of what we have now a cozy relationship with SCE's shareholders receiving record profits while ratepayers pay some of the highest energy rates in the USA!
March 23, 2013 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
California Utility Commissioners Deliberate In Public And Private Meetings In San Diego
Not only will the Region have enough Energy/Power without SanO, but I predict that by the CPUC making it easier for many more to install Solar (of all flavors), California will have a larger SURPLUS of Power than we do now and that is with San Onofre generating ZERO Energy/Power.
Face it the time to Decommission San Onofre is here and if we do so now then it will create a huge number of great decommissioning jobs while at the same time increase all property values because there will not be any RISK of future Nuclear accidents, like the one we almost had 1/31/12...
N☢ More San☢ Accidents
March 23, 2013 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Region Will Have Adequate Power Without San Onofre
Not only will the Region have enough Energy/Power, but I predict that by the CPUC making it easier for many more to install Solar (of all flavors), California will have a larger SURPLUS of Power than we do now and that is without San Onofre generating ZERO Energy/Power.
Face it the time to Decommission San Onofre is here and if we do so now then it will create a huge number of great decommissioning jobs while at the same time increase property values because there will not be any risk of future Nuclear accidents!
March 23, 2013 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Region Will Have Adequate Power Without San Onofre
When can we expect to get our rebates from the 1.5 Billion Dollars all ratepayers have already paid for the San Onofre Debacle?
Show US the Money... Edison...
March 21, 2013 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
California Utility Commissioners Deliberate In Public And Private Meetings In San Diego
AT Twells For ever opportunity the Industry has to make their case the CPUC should grant an equal period for those not in the Industry to also discuss their concerns, that is what equal representation is all about!
March 21, 2013 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Region Will Have Adequate Power Without San Onofre
Both reports were authored by IRSN economist Patrick Momal, who struggled to explain away the differences. The new number, €430 billion, was based on a “median case” of radioactive releases, as was the case in Fukushima, he told the JDD, while the calculations of 2007 were based more on what happened at Chernobyl. But then he added that even the low end of the original report, the €760 billion, when updated with the impact on tourism and exports, would jump to €1 trillion.
REMEMBER:
California and/or the USA cannot afford a multiple Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster like Fukushima for any reason...
and
If I had a bit more time, I would suggest that the CPUC immediately increase the financial limits on who can now qualify for energy upgrades by 50% and then use SoCal as a test to see how much new Solar can be installed in the next 18 months using money that is already sitting in a CPUC holding account! The program administration costs should be capped at 12% unless a huge amount of new Solar (of all flavors) is added, as an inducement to get more done ASAP! BTW: Then if the number of new solar installations are really big then the need for the Peaker Plants will be ZERO... This is a perfect opportunity for the CPUC to challenge ratepayers and at the same time also enable them to make California become far more energy efficient.
Done properly, California should become an Energy Exporter by 2040 or sooner with ever more Solar (of all flavors) adding to our renewable mix for ratepayers that do not have Solar (of all flavors) to pick from. By insuring that every WATT generated earns the same amount of energy credit, regardless of whether it was generated by a home owner or a big Utility, everyone will receive the shortest possible payback from their new retrofit. As ever more Californians have surplus energy, more will seriously consider electric vehicles which will not only reduce smog but also reduce our independence on ever more expensive foreign oil or risky nuclear!
March 21, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Region Will Have Adequate Power Without San Onofre
Please share with all the Commissioners and their financial auditors:
If I could have attended the CPUC meeting today in San Diego, this is what I would said:
French Nuclear Disaster Scenario Was So Bad The Government Kept It Secrethttp://www.businessinsider.com/potential-cost-of-a-nuclear-accident-so-high-its-a-secret-2013-3 via @bi_contributors
snip
Catastrophic nuclear accidents, like Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima No. 1 in 2011, are, we’re incessantly told, very rare, and their probability of occurring infinitesimal.
But when they do occur, they get costly. So costly that the French government, when it came up with cost estimates for an accident in France, kept them secret.
But now the report was leaked to the French magazine, Le Journal de Dimanche. Turns out, the upper end of the cost spectrum of an accident at the nuclear power plant at Dampierre, in the Department of Loiret in north-central France, amounted to over three times the country’s GDP.
Hence, the need to keep it secret. The study was done in 2007 by the Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), a government agency under joint authority of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Environment, Industry, Research, and Health.With over 1,700 employees, it’s France’s “public service expert in nuclear and radiation risks.” This isn’t some overambitious, publicity-hungry think tank.
It evaluated a range of disaster scenarios that might occur at the Dampierre plant. In the best-case scenario, costs came to €760 billion—more than a third of France’s GDP. At the other end of the spectrum: €5.8 trillion! Over three times France’s GDP. A devastating amount. So large that France could not possibly deal with it.
Yet, France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power. The entire nuclear sector is controlled by the state, which also owns 85% of EDF, the mega-utility that operates France’s 58 active nuclear reactors spread over 20 plants. So, three weeks ago, the Institute released a more politically correct report for public consumption. It pegged the cost of an accident at €430 billion.
“There was no political smoothening, no pressure,” claimed IRSN Director General Jacques Repussard, but he admitted, “it’s difficult to publish these kinds of numbers.” He said the original report with a price tag of €5.8 trillion was designed to counter the reports that EDF had fabricated, which “very seriously underestimated the costs of the incidents.”
Cont
March 21, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
California Utility Commissioners Deliberate In Public And Private Meetings In San Diego
We have gone from being told about a tiny (radioactive) leak at SanO over a year ago to now being stuck with a 1.3 Billion Dollar Debacle that SoCal ratepayers are still paying for at over 54 Million Dollars a month, with no end in sight!
Even the NRC and now subsets within the NRC like the NRR and others are still trying to understand exactly what happened to cause the damage which destroyed Unit 3's NEW steam generators in less than a year so that they can better evaluate the damage already done to Unit 2 steam generators.
Edison is desperate to restart using they're poorly in-house designed steam generators at any power level so that they can claim that all this is just "part of doing business" and that the ratepayers should pay for this debacle instead of Edison's shareholders who have had record profits the last few years while SoCal ratepayers have seen their electric bills move ever upward!
How bad does it has to GET, before SoCal ratepayers get a fair and unbiased investigation into why all the checks and balances set up to protect CA ratepayers HAVE FAILED TO WORK?
It is past time for this ENERGY RIP OFF to end, San Onofre should be taken off the rate base immediately and a full unbiased investigation begun with public access to all relevant documentation going back to the original "up-rate" decision that set the stage for doing the replacement steam generator program in the first place.
Until a REAL California LEADER steps forward and DEMANDS OPENNESS, SoCal ratepayers will continue to be subject to continued "energy enslavement" thanks to the too cozy relationship between the Utility and those that regulate them which has enabled the debacle to continue despite numerous attempts to sweep it under the rug and away from public scrutiny!
Now is the time for our Public Servants to step forward and actually perform their sworn duty by SERVING THE PUBLIC and do what is best for the ratepayers not JUST Edison's shareholders, even at the risk of some of them losing their Nuclear Payback*.
* http://www.urbandictionary.com/define...
Those that support nuclear power because nuclear power somehow supports them; no matter what the health implications or other "costs" are for others.
March 21, 2013 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )