dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
I see that "dpb", like a true weasel, omitted the pertinent section of
my message (including the "link" I mentioned. Here's the omitted
section:

--- Start of section ---

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!!"
...

I only responded to the portion on Rancho Seco shutdown not being a SMUD
decision but a referendum (see other post follow-on).

The opinions stated were and are irrelevant to that.
--

The quote from the article (link to which I provided) was:

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."