Stormin Mormon wrote:
You know, Bob, that's about what I was thinking. You think socialism is so
good, move to England. And take all the elected leftists with you.

Hi,
Giving tax payers money to failing banks is not socialism?

Pete C. wrote:
Norminn wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are really
actually paying for.

I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.



How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?

Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?
Hi,
Define higher standard of living? Material well being is just a one part
of standard of living. When visited Scandinavian countries this summer,
they seem to be more aware of world affiars and current issues. They
seemed more intelligent! They could all speake Englsih. How many of you
can speak one of their language for an example?

On Dec 6, 2:33*am, "Pete C." wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/5/2008 9:07 PM Pete C. spake thus:

scorpster wrote:

Based on my most recent Nov electric bill, my CA rate is 20¢ per kWh. *A big
reason for the inflated rate is the ridiculous Tier 1, 2, 3, 4 structure
where they put me in Tier 4 even though our 4-person household is already
very efficient with our energy use. *I think Tier 1 and 2 is reserved for
singles living in apartments.

I feel like I am being ripped off because of
the coal and fossil fuel-loving nuclear-haters.

You are, in part, but the mock "deregulation" CA tried to pull also
backfired badly.

There was nothing "mock" about it--and by the bye, we have a California
Democrat, Steve Peace*, to thank for that disastrous deregulation that
left us open to the depredations of Enron, et al. (See "The Smartest
Kids in the Room" for the full story.)

* Not to mention the deposed Gov. Gray Davis, also a Democrat.

It was indeed "mock" deregulation as in typical CA fashion, they tried
to lock consumer utility rates while making the utilities absorb all
risk from fluctuation in the energy markets.

Here in Texas deregulation is legitimate and we have a wide array of
supplier choices and rates that are pretty midrange relative to other
states. We can even select a 100% wind generation source if we want for
a few cents more per kwh. Of course given the intermittent generation of
wind, we're still dependent on other generation technologies to fill in
the gaps, the primary drawback of wind generation, but they claim 100%
wind on an equivalent KWH basis at any rate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I would have to question just how legitimate the deregulation is in
Texas. Yes, it has been deregulated to the point that you have
options to choose from more than one provider but the way they have
setup the system, it really doesn't provide for true competition. The
base rates are still set based on the cost structure of natural gas
even though more cost effective fuels are used for much of the
generation. Most of the providers are actually resellers who buy on
bulk rates and resell to consumers. Several have gone under during
the last year because they were buying on the spot market and the
price they were paying was well above what they were charging. True
deregulation will only come when there is true competition in the
generation of power.

On Dec 6, 8:06*am, wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:43*am, BobR wrote:





On Dec 5, 7:39*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

dpb wrote:
...

And, of course, to be fair, compare them to any alternative mechanism
of generating equivalent power to the grid at equivalent or lower
cost and reliability. *(HINT: *these life cycle studies were done
exhaustively years ago. *While absolute numbers on the $$ values will
change w/ inflation, the relative rankings won't. *Nuclear wins
overall owing to the much smaller volume of material handled as
compared to coal, on other materials costs owing to the low density
output of the alternative sources.)

Right. Ten years of fuel for a nuclear reactor can be transported in one
truck.

The coal required for one power station involves uncountably many railroad
cars, trudging for a thousand miles (e.g., Montana to Chicago), with the
attendant mishaps expected in mining and transporting such a huge amount of
stuff.

Your arguments are starting to sound like the age old question of
rather you perfer to be killed with a rifle shot or a cannon shot. *It
really doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the end result is "you
are dead".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm just wondering here. * Do you live in a vacuum? *Does the US? * If
nukes are so bad, how is it that other countries get 70% of their
electric power from nukes today? *And I'm not talking about some third
world country. * I'm talking about France, which is supposed to be one
of the enlightened socialist utopia of the world. * Clearly they have
only the highest regard for human life, safety and the environment of
the planet. * So, how is it that they have nukes out the whazoo?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First of all, I have never said that nuclear power is bad. As for
France being an enlightened socialist utopia...you have got to be
****ing kidding! They are a bunch of idiots and I wouldn't not follow
their lead to heaven. What I am asking is that we NOT ignore the
problems with nuclear power as we have so often done with everything
else. The issue of disposal or reprocessing or whatever is needed to
deal with the waste from nuclear power must be delt with before we
expand the problem and find out we don't have solutions. Its time we
start dealing with the problems BEFORE they get out of hand instead of
having to deal with the consequences forever. I really don't care if
it is a technical issue or a political one, deal with it now.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:10:57 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

If a nuclear missile accidentally fired

How does that happen?!!

..explain it to me Lucy; hurry up, I have Bongo lessons....


Hey, I said "if" Just like that car that crashed in front of the school at
3 Am. If it happened at the time the kids were lined up to go in, they would
have been killed.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Electricity is not a power SOURCE, it is a power DISTRIBUTION system.

As much as it pains me, I respectfully disagree.

Electricity is a phenonimon of nature that we harnessed to our great
benefit.
--

JR

On Dec 6, 7:02*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Dec 4, 10:10 am, Norminn wrote:
BobR wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:45 am, Norminn wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are really
actually paying for.
I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.
How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? *And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?
By who's measure? *And if you think they are so damn great, why don't
you move your butt there and shut up?
I like to express myself and I like living where I'm free to do so. *I
should have phrased the statement
about Socialist countries more carefully......... a lot of
them.......Scandinavian countries?....do much better
than we do. *Our healthcare is not only grossly expensive, it is hugely
wasteful. *Our public education
system is horrible. *What weighs on both, and on the economy, is greed
and irresponsibility. *Last
time I filled the gas tank of my car, the price of gasoline was $4/gal
and everyone was howling for
the gov't. to do something. *PEOPLE need to get off their fat arses and
solve the problems; take
responsibility for their debt/spending, and for their fuel consumption.. *
Take responsibility for their
brats who need $1,000 in crap every Christmas so's they will stop acting
like little monsters who
want what they want when they want it.......the blue hair for school,
the trip to rave clubs every
weekend, the sorry excuses for vandalism and misbehaving in school. *
"Children learn what they
live".The idiots who spent 10 years obsessing about Bill Clinton's sex
life have gotten what they
deserve. *The religious zealots who vote on the basis of one narrow
issue have voted us to disaster.
Lots of folks think in terms of sports figures being "role models" for
their children......how about
the dope in the White House who can't even speak in complete sentences?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think maybe you should re-examine some of those Scandinavian
countries that you seem to think so highly of. *Many of them don't
have to deal with the same issues of huge numbers of illegal
immigrants that are currently straining our system. *In addition, you
will find that some of those very countries are experiencing their own
problems with health care costs. *From what I have read, many of those
socialist countries are having substantial problems with both
availability, quality, and costs.

Hi,
Illegal immigrants? If they are all removewd for a moment. U.S. economy
will be semi-paralyzed. People(specially young ones) move/work free in EU..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is the equilivent of saying that people move/work free within the
states in the United States. The difference is that illegal
immigrants are first of all illegal. They do not pay less in taxes
but require more from public services such has healthcare and
schools. No, the economy would not be paralyzed.

On Dec 6, 7:03*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
You know, Bob, that's about what I was thinking. You think socialism is so
good, move to England. And take all the elected leftists with you.

Hi,
Giving tax payers money to failing banks is not socialism?

Do you see me or anyone else promoting giving tax payer money to the
failed banks? Why is it that when you can't come up with some real
argument for your position that you must revert to false arguements?

On Dec 6, 7:06*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Pete C. wrote:
Norminn wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Subsidized: Where the government takes money, by force, from the citizens.
To pay for something that the citizens don't want to think they are really
actually paying for.

I'm sure California could have lower energy prices, if they raised taxes to
pay the difference. Then, they could be just as socialist as Albeeta.

How is giving my money to big banks NOT Socialist? *And why do Socialist
countries have a much
higher standard of living than we do?

Care to give an example of such a socialist country with a higher
standard of living than that in the US?

Hi,
Define higher standard of living? Material well being is just a one part
of standard of living. When visited Scandinavian countries this summer,
they seem to be more aware of world affiars and current issues. They
seemed more intelligent! They could all speake Englsih. How many of you
can speak one of their language for an example?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Visiting a country is not living in that country and is a very poor
measure of their standard of living. I have visited Mexico on several
occasions and based on those visits would have to wonder whay so many
illegal aliens are coming to the US. I know though that beyond the
areas that tourists visit, the economy of Mexico is not all that it
seems. The same is true in any country and those Scandinavian
countries are no exception. They have their own issues and they are
facing many problems of their own.

On Dec 6, 8:52*am, Jim Redelfs wrote:

Those that favor sensible construction and use of proven, fuel-abundant
energy technologies must organize an opposition to those that are
already united to impede the expansion of existing, proven energy: *
Nuclear and clean-burning, low sulfur coal.

As a resident of Louisville, Ky, living 3 miles from a coal-fired
plant, I would be encouraged by your assertion of clean-burning,
low sulfur coal. But the big smudge in the sky reminds that one
fact shoots the hell out of a lot of theory.

That is one of the fundamental flaws with the logic of anti-nuclear fools.
Their entire argument depends on IFs... what if this happens, what if that
happens. Whereas current coal and fossil fuel technology is already causing
environmental damage and health problems, guaranteed.

On 12/4/2008 5:06 AM Caesar Romano spake thus:

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:25:38 -0800, "scorpster"
wrote Re California electric rates are
getting ridiculous:

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.

Oil, gas & coal are getting pretty expensive.

Oil? Really? Bloomberg says that oil is projected to hit somewhere
around $20/bbl come January.


--
Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:22:01 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Oil, gas & coal are getting pretty expensive.

Oil? Really? Bloomberg says that oil is projected to hit somewhere
around $20/bbl come January.

One spinster today suggested gas would fall to $1.00 per gallon at the
pump when we hit bottom.

BobR wrote:

First of all, I have never said that nuclear power is bad. As for
France being an enlightened socialist utopia...you have got to be
****ing kidding! They are a bunch of idiots and I wouldn't not follow
their lead to heaven. What I am asking is that we NOT ignore the
problems with nuclear power as we have so often done with everything
else. The issue of disposal or reprocessing or whatever is needed to
deal with the waste from nuclear power must be delt with before we
expand the problem and find out we don't have solutions. Its time we
start dealing with the problems BEFORE they get out of hand instead of
having to deal with the consequences forever. I really don't care if
it is a technical issue or a political one, deal with it now.

That's putting the cart before the horse!

When you build a house, or a shed, or a concrete driveway, do you
immortalize your plan for disposing of it when it's time to tear it down? Or
do you go ahead with the construction, thereby fulfilling a current need,
secure in the knowledge that, when the time comes, you can find a solution?

It is the American way to believe we can overcome every obstacle. We always
have and, inductively, there's no reason to believe we will ever fail to do
so.

Those who say "maybe we can't" are on the side of the terrorists!

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:22:01 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 12/4/2008 5:06 AM Caesar Romano spake thus:
-snip-
Oil, gas & coal are getting pretty expensive.

Oil? Really? Bloomberg says that oil is projected to hit somewhere
around $20/bbl come January.

Would that be the same Bloomberg that predicted $200 by the end of the
year last January? That predicting the future thing hasn't ever
worked out well for mere mortals.

Jim

"Oren" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:22:01 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Oil, gas & coal are getting pretty expensive.

Oil? Really? Bloomberg says that oil is projected to hit somewhere
around $20/bbl come January.

One spinster today suggested gas would fall to $1.00 per gallon at the
pump when we hit bottom.

More important, how long will it stay there? Could be back to $160 in July.
For one of our warehouses, I bought 1000 gallons and thought I did good
because the price dropped to $3.50 when I had it delivered. Have not even
use it yet, but will tomorrow. I'm going to wait until January to get more
and may fill the tank at that time, about 2000 gallons.

Oren wrote:
....
runaway tanker with 30,000 gallons of chlorine.
....
There's one of the kinds of things to worry about a whole lot more than
Yucca Mountain.

Even if a car were to escape w/ a spent fuel cask, the design is such
even if it were hit, nothing would have happened to the fuel cask. But,
since all shipments are made w/ escorts, etc., as opposed to simply
standard freight shipments, the likelihood is vanishingly small such and
event would happen.

--

Erma1ina wrote:
dpb wrote:
Oren wrote:
...
I'm just more skeptical of the government than I am of the dangers of
a quake. But I live here 100 miles away.
I guess familiarity helps here -- 30 years primarily in commercial power
generation with BSNE and MS Physics w/ an emphasis on nuclear energy
degrees means makes for not being scared and recognizing what is
fearmongering and what is at least a rational argument.

Having a fair amount of that 30 years also being in the Oak Ridge area
and also doing a fair amount of consulting to DOE at the various
facilities including some review studies of vendor cask licensing design
and analysis submittals and knowing many of the other individuals at
Sandia, Los Alamos, Savannah River, Argonne, ..., on a professional
basis concern over their credentials and integrity is not a concern of mine.

Without that background and given the general level of political
doubletalk I can understand skepticism from the pronouncement of
politicos. The underlying questions here, however, aren't actually
political.

As a comforting thought, there are three basic rules for radiation
exposure protection -- time, shielding, distance. You have the cheapest
and easiest to obtain one going for you--distance.

--

"dpb", let me "translate" your recitation of experience: BSNE likely via
US military/Navy(?) with a "terminal" MS (likely from some university
with close ties to military and which hands out MS degrees essentially
for class attendance)--

No, military at all...

BSNE, Kansas State Univerisity
MS Physics, Lynchburg

no thesis,

Wrong. Thesis.

...no true specialization.

Specialization was incore instrumentation and reactor core design.

your experience is osmotic ("knowing many of the other individuals") and
a legacy of having served the industry well while in your military

No military role. 10 years design then internal R&D w/ reactor vendor.

20+ years consulting to various utility clients including many nuclear
utilities and DOE, NRC, ORNL. Author of many technical reports,
referenced in at least one widely used text.

Last 10 years roughly with EPRI (formerly known as Electric Power
Research Institute) Instrumentation & Control Center at the Kingtston
Fossil Plant. Last major project before retiring was development of an
online pulverized coal flow instrument based on advanced nonlinear
signal processing.

Your estimate is wrong on all counts.

--


--

dpb wrote:

Erma1ina wrote:
dpb wrote:
Oren wrote:
...
I'm just more skeptical of the government than I am of the dangers of
a quake. But I live here 100 miles away.
I guess familiarity helps here -- 30 years primarily in commercial power
generation with BSNE and MS Physics w/ an emphasis on nuclear energy
degrees means makes for not being scared and recognizing what is
fearmongering and what is at least a rational argument.

Having a fair amount of that 30 years also being in the Oak Ridge area
and also doing a fair amount of consulting to DOE at the various
facilities including some review studies of vendor cask licensing design
and analysis submittals and knowing many of the other individuals at
Sandia, Los Alamos, Savannah River, Argonne, ..., on a professional
basis concern over their credentials and integrity is not a concern of mine.

Without that background and given the general level of political
doubletalk I can understand skepticism from the pronouncement of
politicos. The underlying questions here, however, aren't actually
political.

As a comforting thought, there are three basic rules for radiation
exposure protection -- time, shielding, distance. You have the cheapest
and easiest to obtain one going for you--distance.

--

"dpb", let me "translate" your recitation of experience: BSNE likely via
US military/Navy(?) with a "terminal" MS (likely from some university
with close ties to military and which hands out MS degrees essentially
for class attendance)--

No, military at all...

BSNE, Kansas State Univerisity
MS Physics, Lynchburg

no thesis,

Wrong. Thesis.

...no true specialization.

Specialization was incore instrumentation and reactor core design.

your experience is osmotic ("knowing many of the other individuals") and
a legacy of having served the industry well while in your military

No military role. 10 years design then internal R&D w/ reactor vendor.

20+ years consulting to various utility clients including many nuclear
utilities and DOE, NRC, ORNL. Author of many technical reports,
referenced in at least one widely used text.

Last 10 years roughly with EPRI (formerly known as Electric Power
Research Institute) Instrumentation & Control Center at the Kingtston
Fossil Plant. Last major project before retiring was development of an
online pulverized coal flow instrument based on advanced nonlinear
signal processing.

Your estimate is wrong on all counts.

--

--

Hmmm.

So you say.

Funny. Your way of presenting an argument doesn't match the
mathematicians (my area) or physicists I've worked with over the years.
I think you've deserted any scientific roots you may have had and simply
become a freelancing industry tout.

BTW, I did consulting (computer systems design) for EPRI in the SF Bay
area a "while ago". LOL.

dpb wrote:

BSNE, Kansas State Univerisity
MS Physics, Lynchburg

Is that Lynchburg College in Lynchburg Virginia?

HeyBub wrote:

It is the American way to believe we can overcome every obstacle. We always
have and, inductively, there's no reason to believe we will ever fail to do
so.

Those who say "maybe we can't" are on the side of the terrorists!

LOL. What a twit!!

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 15:22:01 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 12/4/2008 5:06 AM Caesar Romano spake thus:
-snip-
Oil, gas & coal are getting pretty expensive.

Oil? Really? Bloomberg says that oil is projected to hit somewhere
around $20/bbl come January.

Would that be the same Bloomberg that predicted $200 by the end of the
year last January? That predicting the future thing hasn't ever
worked out well for mere mortals.

Jim

Yes. Predicting the past is the only reliable course. Forget all those
wacky scientists with their pussified "theories" that predict the
future.

I'm surprised we aren't still living in trees -- of course that's only
if you believe in evolution.

LOL.

Erma1ina wrote:
....
So you say.

So I say.

Funny. Your way of presenting an argument doesn't match the
mathematicians (my area) or physicists I've worked with over the years.
....
Funny. Your personal attacks and arguments have had little resemblance
to a mathematical treatise.

ahr is not a suitable forum for detailed scientific or engineering
writing--although specific opinions offered have been based on direct
experience/knowledge and certain comments noted as being recollections
were later verified as fundamentally correct.

--

dpb wrote:
....
since all shipments are made w/ escorts, etc., ...

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/transpo.../shipping.html

Certain specific requirements apply to shippers of spent nuclear fuel.
* A shipper must use NRC-approved highway routes for transport of spent nuclear fuel.
* The shipper must make sure that spent fuel is protected against radiological sabotage.
Shippers who transport or deliver spent fuel to a carrier for transport
are required to meet specific requirements that include--
o notifying NRC of the shipment,
o having procedures for addressing emergencies,
o having a communications center,having a written log of shipment events,
o making arrangements with local law enforcement agencies for shipments while en route, and
o using armed escorts in heavily populated areas.
....

Also of possible interest

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...0-0042scy.html

--

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:37:37 -0600, dpb wrote:

dpb wrote:
...
since all shipments are made w/ escorts, etc., ...


So, just who are these elite forces?

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/transpo.../shipping.html

Certain specific requirements apply to shippers of spent nuclear fuel.
* A shipper must use NRC-approved highway routes for transport of spent nuclear fuel.
* The shipper must make sure that spent fuel is protected against radiological sabotage.
Shippers who transport or deliver spent fuel to a carrier for transport
are required to meet specific requirements that include--
o notifying NRC of the shipment,
o having procedures for addressing emergencies,
o having a communications center,having a written log of shipment events,
o making arrangements with local law enforcement agencies for shipments while en route, and
o using armed escorts in heavily populated areas.
...

Also of possible interest

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...0-0042scy.html

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:37:37 -0600, dpb wrote:

dpb wrote:
...
since all shipments are made w/ escorts, etc., ...

So, just who are these elite forces?

....

Moonlighting black helicopter pilots, of course.

--

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:22:53 -0600, dpb wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:37:37 -0600, dpb wrote:

dpb wrote:
...
since all shipments are made w/ escorts, etc., ...

So, just who are these elite forces?

...

Moonlighting black helicopter pilots, of course.

How much for a prisoner transport? Always a use for choppers!

Ermina, your writings don't come across like someone with understanding of
advanced mathematics or theoretical physics. Your personal insults are
pretty sharp, but I haven't seen you put much effort into applying
scienctific knowledge in these conversations.

dpb wrote:
....
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.
....
And, elsewhere that much of Rancho Seco's problems were owing to
operator, not the plant per se.

As a data point in that regard, _Electrical World Directory of Electric
Power Producers 103rd Ed. shows that the Oconee plant which consists of
three (count 'em, 3) plants of the same vintage (Unit I online in '73)
had a net generation of 20,145,806 MWhr in 1993. The station rated
output is 2667 MWe net. Working that out, one sees the whole station
achieved an annual capacity factor of 86%.

From that it's pretty apparent there must have been something not up to
par at SMUD in the operations. Since the plants were of the same design
one aberrant result out of four suggests the one is the outlier.

I picked another earlier year at random from the EIA production database
of 1980. For that year the capacity was 66% owing including the spring
refueling outages at two units that particular year. That would lead to
another high capacity factor year the following as there would be no
outage the subsequent year needed.

Those data are available for all generation facilities by following the
links at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri...e/eia906u.html

BTW, in comparison, I did the Gray County wind farm locally and in the 7
years since it began operation, it's average capacity factor to date is
also, coincidentally, just over 40%. Meanwhile, Wolf Creek Nuclear (a
different reactor vendor than Rancho Seco) has about 80% over the same
time period and had a specific year of ~95% capacity for the entire year.

For baseload generation and some effect regarding C sequestration and
greenhouse gases, it's hard to conceive a more effective near-term answer.

I was unable in a reasonable time to find historical data for SMUD to
actually observe the effects of the shutdown on their rates but did
discover they were short of generation and resorted to rolling blackouts
not terribly long after. One wonders if that would have been necessary
if the missing ~900 MW of capacity had been available. Also, they have
since 2000 built a new 500 MWe gas-fired station--that's a real waste of
natural gas which is much more valuable for many other purposes besides
central-station generation.

--

dpb wrote:
....
I picked another earlier year at random from the EIA production database
of 1980. For that year the capacity was 66% owing including the spring
refueling outages at two units that particular year. That would lead to
another high capacity factor year the following as there would be no
outage the subsequent year needed.
....
Didn't think to look at Rancho Seco from the same database--in 1980 it
produced 4,425,923 KWhr w/ listed capacity of 963 MWe. That works out
to 52.5% but there was again, an outage during Feb-Apr. Ratioing those
three months the plant had a not great operating CF of 70% the rest of
the year.

As noted, the Oconee Station demonstrates that these units with good
operating practices can make 85% CF.

--