scorpster wrote:

I just received a notice from California Edison that Tier 3, 4 and 5 rates
are increasing AGAIN in the first quarter of 2009. My electric bill is
typically $400 a month. I don't think very many people fall into Tier 1 or
2. Here's what really ****es me off: the electric utilities fail to take
advantage of clean nuclear power. They keep wasting our money on natural
gas, wind power, and all kinds of inefficient "green" ideas but they are
blind to nuclear power. If we had nuclear power we'd only be paying a
fraction of the price and it would be good for the environment!!

Oh I don't think California "electric utilities fail to take advantage
of clean nuclear power." or that "If we had nuclear power we'd only be
paying a fraction of the price and it would be good for the
environment!!"

Think: "R A N C H O S E C O" and check out:

http://www.constructionweblinks.com/...0407/laww.html

Here are some excerpts:

Regarding the specific issue of "Rancho Seco":

"If the investor-owned utilities will not build new nuclear plants, the
other possibilities are municipally-owned utilities and independent
generators. The Sacramento Municipal Utility District, which shut down
its Rancho Seco nuclear plant in 1989 due to high costs and chronically
poor performance, is unlikely to want to go down that road again."

Regarding the general issue the nuclear power in
[fresh-water-starved-fault-riddled] California:

"Rivers in California . . . are increasingly impractical and unavailable
for nuclear power. . . . there is continued demand for fresh water from
agriculture, industry and residential development. In the southern
United States, recent droughts have resulted in nuclear reactors being
shut down due to low water levels and high water temperatures in rivers
and lakes. The bulk of California's rivers are fed by Sierra snowmelt,
which means that drought and global warming (combined with the other
demands for water), tend to make river water an unreliable long-term
source, particularly in the quantities needed by nuclear plants."

and

"The Pacific Ocean provides the water for California's two operating
nuclear power plants, Diablo Canyon (on the Central Coast) and San
Onofre (between Los Angeles and San Diego), and there is certainly
plenty of ocean water. One problem in siting new nuclear plants on the
coast becomes apparent upon looking at seismic hazard maps - the coastal
region of California also is largely an area of significant seismic
risk. Even the staunchest advocates of nuclear plants should hesitate to
locate a reactor in an earthquake-prone area.

"In short, siting a nuclear plant in California presents a dilemma - if
you site it where there is plenty of water, you are increasing your
earthquake risk."