"DPB", LOOK AT THE "SUBJECT" OF THIS THREAD. LOL

dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
dpb wrote:
Erma1ina wrote:
Hmmm.

Tell me: Do you have ANY objective documentation ...
...

My recollection on the referendum portion appears correct as I thought...

The decision, in a special referendum, put an end to the operations
of the 15- year-old Rancho Seco facility ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...957975,00.html
On August 21, 2002, Rancho Seco completed placing all 493 spent fuel
assemblies ... In accordance with the results of a public referendum on
June 6, 1989, ...
www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/rancho-seco-nuclear-generating-station.html
Spokesmen for the nuclear power industry stress that Rancho Seco is a
special case, that this is not a referendum likely to have national
reprecussions. ...
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0D6143EF93BA15756C0A96F9482 60&se...

Again, like a weasel, "dpb" failed to quote the PERTINENT section of the
Time article:

"The Sacramento plant produced only 40% as much electricity as expected,
and its output cost twice as much as that bought on the conventional
market. One result was a doubling of electricity rates. Said Bob
Mulholland, who headed the campaign to close Rancho Seco: 'It's the
first time the debate over a nuclear plant has focused on economics
rather than safety.' "

In other words, as the article I referenced stated, RANCHO SECO was NOT
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE.

I said nothing about the economics of the particular plant one way or
the other, only that it wasn't a utility district choice to shut it down.

I'll only note the overall economics of nuclear can not be assessed
simply from one poorly operated plant.

--