U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay
 [Register]
Tampa Bay Tampa - St. Petersburg - Clearwater
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-05-2013, 04:29 PM
 
26,863 posts, read 42,037,023 times
Reputation: 15119

Advertisements

State regulators OK Duke Energy nuclear rate hike | Bay News 9




TALLAHASSEE --
Florida utility regulators are letting the nation's largest utility company raise rates to pay for a now shuttered nuclear power plant.

The cost for customers will be about $108 million a year from 2014 to 2017.
--------------------------

What are they thinking in Tallahassee? We alreayd are paying for this nuclear plant that i not going to be build and now they get another rate increase...OMG

They should all be fired!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2013, 06:12 PM
 
1,106 posts, read 2,069,465 times
Reputation: 954
It is once again obvious that a vast majority of people have never had to make a strategic decision as part of a company's planning process.

This is actually a good outcome. Hear me out:

I saw the process when it started a decade ago as Progress/Duke buying an option on a potential future plant, and am happy that they only spent $1 billion instead of following through and completing the plant (for $25+ billion). At least they were smart enough to change their mind when the facts changed. Okay, so it cost a billion. It could have been much, much, much more money.

I find it odd that the same people who are "outraged" at this process are the same types who believe that when you start something, you had better finish it, even if it is a terrible idea. There are fools on the St Pete City Council who want to spend $50 million more to complete the Lens Pier just so "we didn't waste the few million dollars spent designing it". That is a direct quote. Sorry, but that money is GONE.

Imagine the state had spent $1 billion doing preliminary work on a 40 mph "bullet" train, then scrapped the plan. It would still be better than spending another $75 billion before admitting that oops! it doesn't work.

In this case, I would rather see a $1 billion admitted mistake than a refusal to see when a much larger mistake has been made.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 05:33 AM
 
26,863 posts, read 42,037,023 times
Reputation: 15119
I agree that stopping the process is better than follow through and wasting more money BUT that is not the issue now.

Duke Energy is getting more money due to another rate increase which is the issue and to me totally wrong!

What you are saying is that it is ok to give more money to people who waste it and aren't doing anything with it...doesn't that sound stupid!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 06:58 AM
 
Location: Any Beach/FL
26,241 posts, read 14,739,491 times
Reputation: 10800
Follow the money- Oh sure the concept makes sense -do not spend more on a empty dream,, SO-what was it spent on ? Pay it back! oh noo-- now just jack the rates up more... ?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 07:00 AM
 
Location: Lincoln County Road or Armageddon
4,344 posts, read 6,092,685 times
Reputation: 5979
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_tino View Post
It is once again obvious that a vast majority of people have never had to make a strategic decision as part of a company's planning process.

This is actually a good outcome. Hear me out:

I saw the process when it started a decade ago as Progress/Duke buying an option on a potential future plant, and am happy that they only spent $1 billion instead of following through and completing the plant (for $25+ billion). At least they were smart enough to change their mind when the facts changed. Okay, so it cost a billion. It could have been much, much, much more money.

I find it odd that the same people who are "outraged" at this process are the same types who believe that when you start something, you had better finish it, even if it is a terrible idea. There are fools on the St Pete City Council who want to spend $50 million more to complete the Lens Pier just so "we didn't waste the few million dollars spent designing it". That is a direct quote. Sorry, but that money is GONE.

Imagine the state had spent $1 billion doing preliminary work on a 40 mph "bullet" train, then scrapped the plan. It would still be better than spending another $75 billion before admitting that oops! it doesn't work.

In this case, I would rather see a $1 billion admitted mistake than a refusal to see when a much larger mistake has been made.
How about telling Duke/Progress and it's shareholders "Tough ****. You broke it, you bought it." Why the word "Public" is still included in the PSC's title is beyond me.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 09:38 AM
 
1,106 posts, read 2,069,465 times
Reputation: 954
Here's the flaw in your argument: power plants don't just "pop up" overnight. The development of a large power plant takes years and years of planning and construction before they turn on the juice.

Utilities are constantly looking forward 5, 10 or 20 years to see what the demand will be, what fuel prices will be, etc, and plan ahead. Unfortunately, things change. A decade ago, Florida was growing at a stupendous rate, natural gas was quite expensive, and the environmentalists were (still) yammering on about coal plants.

Progress looked at that and determined that a nuclear plant would be the best solution, and they started moving forward. They had to lock up engineers, contractors and equipment builders because a nuclear plant can take a decade to build. Unfortunately, things changed over that time -- the Florida economy went into the toilet, natural gas prices plunged to historical lows, and the nuke plant's construction estimates kept going up. They finally figured out that smaller natural gas-burning plants would be a better solution, and pulled the plug.

They prudently went through the process of planning it, and then changed their minds when economic forces changed. The ratepayers had to pay for that process. It's that simple.

Due to its geography, Florida is transmission-constrained, meaning that it is difficult to get power in and out of the state. That's why we don't have a "free market" in electricity like a number of other states do. Progress (now Duke), spends money to build and run power plants and transmit the power to us and is guaranteed a fixed rate of return on their investment.

What you seem to be advocating is that Duke makes an investment on their own, and then if Floridians need the power, they can then charge us whatever they want. That would be a terrible idea in this state, because of the reasons stated above. When there is not enough transmission capacity for competitors to enter and compete, prices can escalate 500 or 1000%. (See early market experiments in California and Texas) Maybe you can handle a $700 electric bill, but I can't.

It should also be known that Florida's electricity prices are about average for the country (and much, much lower than the rest of the world). Ask your friends in the Northeast or California what they pay per kWh and you will be shocked.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 10:09 AM
 
5,328 posts, read 3,912,476 times
Reputation: 3097
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_tino View Post
Here's the flaw in your argument: power plants don't just "pop up" overnight. The development of a large power plant takes years and years of planning and construction before they turn on the juice.

Utilities are constantly looking forward 5, 10 or 20 years to see what the demand will be, what fuel prices will be, etc, and plan ahead. Unfortunately, things change. A decade ago, Florida was growing at a stupendous rate, natural gas was quite expensive, and the environmentalists were (still) yammering on about coal plants.

Progress looked at that and determined that a nuclear plant would be the best solution, and they started moving forward. They had to lock up engineers, contractors and equipment builders because a nuclear plant can take a decade to build. Unfortunately, things changed over that time -- the Florida economy went into the toilet, natural gas prices plunged to historical lows, and the nuke plant's construction estimates kept going up. They finally figured out that smaller natural gas-burning plants would be a better solution, and pulled the plug.

They prudently went through the process of planning it, and then changed their minds when economic forces changed. The ratepayers had to pay for that process. It's that simple.

Due to its geography, Florida is transmission-constrained, meaning that it is difficult to get power in and out of the state. That's why we don't have a "free market" in electricity like a number of other states do. Progress (now Duke), spends money to build and run power plants and transmit the power to us and is guaranteed a fixed rate of return on their investment.

What you seem to be advocating is that Duke makes an investment on their own, and then if Floridians need the power, they can then charge us whatever they want. That would be a terrible idea in this state, because of the reasons stated above. When there is not enough transmission capacity for competitors to enter and compete, prices can escalate 500 or 1000%. (See early market experiments in California and Texas) Maybe you can handle a $700 electric bill, but I can't.

It should also be known that Florida's electricity prices are about average for the country (and much, much lower than the rest of the world). Ask your friends in the Northeast or California what they pay per kWh and you will be shocked.
Right that is why we have regulated monopolies, the issue is the nuclear advance cost recovery law that was passed not only removed the financial risk from the utilities but rewarded them on a cost+%cost basis, so Duke would pocket a percentage of whatever they spent on the plant, the incentive is for Duke to spend as much as possible to make as much as possible.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Lincoln County Road or Armageddon
4,344 posts, read 6,092,685 times
Reputation: 5979
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_tino View Post
Here's the flaw in your argument: power plants don't just "pop up" overnight. The development of a large power plant takes years and years of planning and construction before they turn on the juice.

Utilities are constantly looking forward 5, 10 or 20 years to see what the demand will be, what fuel prices will be, etc, and plan ahead. Unfortunately, things change. A decade ago, Florida was growing at a stupendous rate, natural gas was quite expensive, and the environmentalists were (still) yammering on about coal plants.

Progress looked at that and determined that a nuclear plant would be the best solution, and they started moving forward. They had to lock up engineers, contractors and equipment builders because a nuclear plant can take a decade to build. Unfortunately, things changed over that time -- the Florida economy went into the toilet, natural gas prices plunged to historical lows, and the nuke plant's construction estimates kept going up. They finally figured out that smaller natural gas-burning plants would be a better solution, and pulled the plug.

They prudently went through the process of planning it, and then changed their minds when economic forces changed. The ratepayers had to pay for that process. It's that simple.

Due to its geography, Florida is transmission-constrained, meaning that it is difficult to get power in and out of the state. That's why we don't have a "free market" in electricity like a number of other states do. Progress (now Duke), spends money to build and run power plants and transmit the power to us and is guaranteed a fixed rate of return on their investment.

What you seem to be advocating is that Duke makes an investment on their own, and then if Floridians need the power, they can then charge us whatever they want. That would be a terrible idea in this state, because of the reasons stated above. When there is not enough transmission capacity for competitors to enter and compete, prices can escalate 500 or 1000%. (See early market experiments in California and Texas) Maybe you can handle a $700 electric bill, but I can't.

It should also be known that Florida's electricity prices are about average for the country (and much, much lower than the rest of the world). Ask your friends in the Northeast or California what they pay per kWh and you will be shocked.
Why is gross negligence, bad decisions and hubris on the part of Progress/Duke my problem to fix and or pay for? Other than farm subsidies (another idea who's time has come and gone), what other industry is guaranteed by law a fixed rate of return? And who are these competitors of Duke entering our market you're speaking of?

Yes, some states pay more per kWH than Florida, but many don't. Also, some states are taxed at a higher level on electricity and some have massive debts connected with new power plant construction which they pass along to the ratepayers (sound familiar?).

It's not about who pays for a new, working power house-it's about who pays for a total screw up. Even a commoner like me knows that nuclear power has been on the way out for some time and renewable sources are growing. There's a reason why no new nukes have come on line since '96.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=3270#
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 11:52 AM
 
1,106 posts, read 2,069,465 times
Reputation: 954
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams View Post
Even a commoner like me knows that nuclear power has been on the way out for some time and renewable sources are growing. There's a reason why no new nukes have come on line since '96.
I'm trying to figure out how planning for future power plants is considered gross negligence and a screwup. No one else does, apparently.

We can debate the merits of nuclear power in another thread. Plant Vogtle in Georgia is being built (2016 start), Watts Bar 2 is almost complete (2015 start), and Browns Ferry 1 started in 2007, but I guess those don't count under your math. Nuclear power world wide is still growing, because countries that need power and do not want to be dependent on other countries for their fuel are building them.

If you are actually comparing the COST of nuclear power versus renewables, get ready to bend over and get flattened by a tsunami of facts and numbers.

The cost of baseload renewables for the Florida market would cost about 5 times more than nuclear, or 10 times more than natural gas per kWh of baseload power.

Renewables are to power as mass transit is to transportation. Both are grossly inefficient, non-economic and only built because of monstrous government subsidies provided to the builders. Go look at Germany's renewable-heavy electric grid and explain why their rates are almost 5 times higher than in the US.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2013, 12:01 PM
 
5,328 posts, read 3,912,476 times
Reputation: 3097
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi_tino View Post
Renewables are to power as mass transit is to transportation. Both are grossly inefficient, non-economic and only built because of monstrous government subsidies provided to the builders. Go look at Germany's renewable-heavy electric grid and explain why their rates are almost 5 times higher than in the US.
That's like saying $1 hambugers from checkers are better for you than salads, because they cost less. Your analysis does not account for hidden cost to our environment.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top