Public Utilities

[jaretac]

Anyone else ever have to deal with them. I have to say I hate them and love them at the same time. They are slow as molasses in getting things hooked up, but they are a cheep as cheep can be. My electric bill for a 2 bed, 1500 sq ft house is $55 a month and we don't get natural gas for heat; however I have been waiting for the PUD to hook up my fiber optics for 3 months.

[baller21]

so what do you use for heat that only costs $55 a month?

[jaretac]

so what do you use for heat that only costs $55 a month?

electric furnace from about 20 years ago that I can't even get a filter for it. That may also be an advantage of having the two largest hydroelectric dams in the US both within 40 miles.

[tazclone]

electric furnace from about 20 years ago that I can't even get a filter for it. That may also be an advantage of having the two largest hydroelectric dams in the US both within 40 miles.

I wish this country would realize the value of Hydro electric and Nuclear power. Everyone looks at Europe for alternative energy sources but in this country we cna't use two of the best. Hydro and Nuclear

[Clonehomer]

I wish this country would realize the value of Hydro electric and Nuclear power. Everyone looks at Europe for alternative energy sources but in this country we cna't use two of the best. Hydro and Nuclear

You going to fork over the cost for those nuclear plants? The fact that they are so expensive to build and take years to start recouping your money turns a lot of investors away. We're getting there, but it's going to take some time. I think they have already started construction of several new plants in the Houston area.

As far as hydro, it creates a big environmental change in the area that you are going to dam up so it's not as big as just adding one. Also, the rivers in this country that are big enough are relied upon by communities to get fresh water. If you dam it up in the northern states, the southern states suddenly have a water shortage.

[Iastfan112]

You going to fork over the cost for those nuclear plants? The fact that they are so expensive to build and take years to start recouping your money turns a lot of investors away. We're getting there, but it's going to take some time. I think they have already started construction of several new plants in the Houston area.

As far as hydro, it creates a big environmental change in the area that you are going to dam up so it's not as big as just adding one. Also, the rivers in this country that are big enough are relied upon by communities to get fresh water. If you dam it up in the northern states, the southern states suddenly have a water shortage.

The additional issue with hydro in Iowa is the lack of significant rates of fall in Iowa rivers.

[cychhosis]

The additional issue with hydro in Iowa is the lack of significant rates of fall in Iowa rivers.

In it's day, the dam in Keokuk was considered quite innovative and was used as a model for other areas with very little fall in the landscape.

[ruxCYtable]

The problem with nuclear isn't the cost. It's radical environmental technology haters throwing up manufactured red flags to stop it from happening. It's 100% clean, 100% renewable and, except for two preventable human error accidents in the last 40 years, it is safe. There's your solution to all our nation's energy problems right there. One of the worst things about it is, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository that YOU PAID FOR is sitting empty due to legal wrangling. The problem of nuclear waste could be greatly reduced if the Carter administration hadn't outlawed recycling of spent fuel rods for virtually no reason even though they've been doing it safely in Europe for decades. Nuclear is the answer, period, end of story but it will never happen while the environmentalists are hugging their windmills and solar panels.

[Clonehomer]

The problem with nuclear isn't the cost. It's radical environmental technology haters throwing up manufactured red flags to stop it from happening. It's 100% clean, 100% renewable and, except for two preventable human error accidents in the last 40 years, it is safe. There's your solution to all our nation's energy problems right there. One of the worst things about it is, the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository that YOU PAID FOR is sitting empty due to legal wrangling. The problem of nuclear waste could be greatly reduced if the Carter administration hadn't outlawed recycling of spent fuel rods for virtually no reason even though they've been doing it safely in Europe for decades. Nuclear is the answer, period, end of story but it will never happen while the environmentalists are hugging their windmills and solar panels.

Really? 2.6 billion dollar investment that will sit for 6 years while the plant is being built isn't a problem? If an investor wants to spend the money, the tree-huggers won't be a reason to stop.

The government will be forced to make a decision on the spent fuel once the older reactors start to become decommisioned. Yucca mountain is just one option. The government could remove the ban on fuel reprocessing. This would allow the fuel to be used in fast reactors and greatly expand the amount of energy from the uranium.

[CloneIce]

It's 100% clean.

That is not correct. Lets be at least somewhat realistic here.

[jaretac]

As far as hydro, it creates a big environmental change in the area that you are going to dam up so it's not as big as just adding one. Also, the rivers in this country that are big enough are relied upon by communities to get fresh water. If you dam it up in the northern states, the southern states suddenly have a water shortage.

First, unless the river is seasonal, water shortage is not a problem. Once the reserver is filled (which they usually do gradually), the water will normally flow out of the reserver at the same or greater quantity than what flowed into the reserver. Dams use the the force of the water to turn turbines to create electricity so no water is actually wasted.

Second,

The additional issue with hydro in Iowa is the lack of significant rates of fall in Iowa rivers.

Why do we have dams all over the DesMoines and none of them are hydro-electric capabilities? There are smaller rivers out here that are being utilized for hydro electricity. There are so many dams out there that could be producing electricity but don't.

[iowa_wildcat]

The dams on the Missouri River provide hydroelectric power for much of the state of South Dakota. I have never in my 60 years heard Nebraska or Iowa complain about a lack of water flow in the Missouri.