Comments

Too Boo wrote on Jan 19, 2009 12:06 PM:

" Again, you fall back to insults. How does that further any debate? How does that help you seem credible? How does that encourage anyone to listen to anything you have to say? When you call someone's words toxic because they express their thoughts that they don't want nuclear waste, that's insulting. When you tell someone to go fly a kite, you are being insulting. When you call someone a ranting treehugger, you are being insulting. Just because you don't have a problem with your unhelpful and inappropriate actions doesn't mean we all have to love them too. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 17, 2009 9:07 PM:

" Sounds like the answer to all our dreams A nuke plant from SE Asia "




Boo wrote on Jan 16, 2009 10:14 AM:

" Never did I insult anyone in my comments, I fail to understand the intent of your rant. This is a comment section, if you don't like comments refrain from visiting this section. I do have an insult for you but will be civil as I have always been and not post it. "




Boo wrote on Jan 16, 2009 10:11 AM:

" Whomever wrote TO BOO. Put out your wind kite and make your own power, I see others have posted more comments than I and it took them all to look up that Toshiba system to which I refer, guess what it is safe and leaves little waste behind, Gakona is considering the unit which is self contained and only 10 x 30. AS for civil, I fail to see when stateing facts and not calling names I am uncivil, I say you are another uniformed tree hugger wanting to rant. You don't have any idea of my Mother. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 15, 2009 10:11 PM:

" To all Ak Nuke promoters - Gas is the only near term solution to our energy needs.
If Nukes are the answer? Put one in your garage and after a coupla years of safe, reliable (LF=98%+) operation, invite me over for a beer and convince me! "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 15, 2009 8:52 PM:

" The Russians have a great Nuke powerhouse design too. The only draw back is the fuel has to be pumped threw the Ukraine. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 15, 2009 8:45 PM:

" " Maintenance, the name is TOSHIBA, they make small self contained, reliable, safe, small, unmanned units. Check them out. "

I'll wait for the memo from the NRC. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 15, 2009 8:41 PM:

" " I was expecting to model the plant after the latest 1600MW French designs... which is overkill for the rail-belt, but with growth would reach capacity by the time it was built. :)
I perfer the term "Freedom Plants".
Once the word gets out about all that juice, the consumers will be flockin' in! "




To Boo wrote on Jan 15, 2009 5:23 PM:

" Why, if you have the facts on your side (as you think you do) do you also feel the need, over and over again in your comments throughout this website, to insult people who disagree with you? Tell them they are wrong. Point them in the direction of information. Make an argument. Insults don't accomplish anything, and make you look small, insecure, and untrustworthy.

I'm sure your mother or someone else in your life taught you the tools of decency, civility, and learned discourse. Avail yourself of them now please. "




More Nuke wrote on Jan 15, 2009 5:13 PM:

" I was expecting to model the plant after the latest 1600MW French designs... which is overkill for the rail-belt, but with growth would reach capacity by the time it was built. :) "




Warm wrote on Jan 15, 2009 5:08 PM:

" Maintenance, the name is TOSHIBA, they make small self contained, reliable, safe, small, unmanned units. Check them out. "




Boo wrote on Jan 15, 2009 4:04 PM:

" And the Toshiba units almost an employee free unit, as many small co gen units are non manned, thus can be the Toshiba with a minimum of oversight. "




boo wrote on Jan 15, 2009 4:02 PM:

" Mr Maintenance, FYI Toshiba has a compact self contained unit that is more than affordable, I hear the orders are pouring in and and the delivery time will grow longer every day we here in the Valley wait to decide our own fate. Waste energy to make energy seems stupid. ie coal, gas etc. Time to think nuclear not fossil. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 15, 2009 3:33 PM:

" To Nuke, all very good and well researched facts but where are you gonna get a 100MW civilian plant? Westinghouse website doesn't even mention the AP600 anymore and that was a 600MW unit. 1000MW is the smallest plant circle W wants to sell in the US. GE-Mitsubishi is into 1700MW units. See my earlier comments for my other concerns about management and site-ing of a Nuke powerhouse "




To Nuclear wrote on Jan 15, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Some facts: 1. Coal dumps 100-500 times more nuclear materials into the environment during operation. 2. An average nuclear facility produces 1 standard truck cargo container of nuclear waste every 1 - 3 years which can be contained in a simple concrete vault (with a 10,000 year half-life, not 10M). 3. Nuclear power is one of the safest generation methods available. 4. Nuclear power waste heat and waste water is 100% pure with no contaminants. 5. Alaska produces Uranium, use it. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 15, 2009 11:26 AM:

" Just read in the ADN that AIDEA, GVEA and HEA came to terms on getting HCCP up and running. The ADN said it's only 50MW. Just read an article in a trade rag yesterday that said the cost of building 3rd generation nukes is estimated to cost 10 times more than a comp size coal plant and I agree with SM would you really want Tuckerman in charge of a Nuke down in the gravel pit? There're no civilian approved Nuke designs small enough for the AK grid anyway and the Navy ain't sharing. "




boo wrote on Jan 15, 2009 11:22 AM:

" Nuclear, New Toshiba Cores have virtually eliminated 90% of the waste to which you refer. Any other fossil fuel used to produce electric is fuel wasted, burn gas to make electric, boy that is really smart nor green. The waste from you mouth is the most toxic written here today as you and others have not done the new nuclear research. Talk a out Toxic! "




SM wrote on Jan 15, 2009 10:05 AM:

" HCCP is a failed experiment, but that doesn't mean it can't be renovated into something functional and possibly even profitable. I am not saying it is the best choice, but shouldn't we be investigating all options? Again, I completely support nuclear power, but it just won't happen. The construction costs are astronomical, the permitting is near impossible, and would you really want a nuclear power plant in the management hands of MEA or CEA? "




Nuclear wrote on Jan 15, 2009 8:57 AM:

" Oh please, there is no definition whereby a power generation facility that produces the most toxic waste ever imagined - which cannot be treated or in any way rendered less-toxic for it's 10,000,000 year half life - can possibly be called "green". Well, yes, it does glow green, but that's about it. "




Ready Kilowatt wrote on Jan 15, 2009 8:48 AM:

" The CEA rate increase that we will have to pay is due to increased natural gas costs. How can MEA think they can generate power cheaper when they have not negoitiated a gas contract yet? MEA has no idea what their fuel costs will be in 2014. We will be shocked in 4-5 years when we will be paying far more than CEA due to not having gas contracts negoiated. Building our own power plant does NOT solve the problem. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 14, 2009 7:18 PM:

" ....and a coupla more reasons. HCCP is only 60MW and is 150miles north of being local on a Trans line known for it's poor design and spotty maintenance. Not really an option unless the objective is to spend more time in court. "




BOO wrote on Jan 14, 2009 6:31 PM:

" Smart power is nuclear power, ask any one of the submarine group, they will talk its safety and unblemished record. GO NUCLEAR, get smart, it is green! Your choice in 10 years buy a candle or burn lamp oil in your home for lighting, not very safe for lung, and deaths due to house fires. WAKE UP OUT THERE "




gas up wrote on Jan 14, 2009 4:40 PM:

" The thing wrong at MEA is that the Board needs to hire some seriously professional managers. The MEA board needs to develop partnerships with anyone and everyone to get that spur gas line built so a new local generation facility can be built to lower our rates. The current MEA managers are unable or unwilling to forge such partnerships and should be let go.

The heavily subsidized Healy coal plant is not working well and may never pay off. The current board is just fine; thanks and keep after it! "




Boo wrote on Jan 14, 2009 4:18 PM:

" And now we are not even in the running for the Healy Plant, Homer will buy that power from GVEA. Best build a safe, efficient nuke here in the valley, best get on it now local folks or face no power as that is what MEA generates. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 14, 2009 3:33 PM:

" HCCP is a failed experiment. There was some talk about HEA taking over operation but they probably figured out it's a pig w/lipstick just like GVEA did. I mean if you can't make money with a free powerhouse there must be some real operational issues. "




Boo wrote on Jan 14, 2009 10:23 AM:

" There have been other plans for private power production plants to be built here for MEA. Private producers with track records all over the world yet they have not been seriously considered. It is time to partner with some major producer and bring power production right here to Palmer. The past BOD has muddied the issues and not be truthful "




To Lud Larson wrote on Jan 14, 2009 8:34 AM:

" The Healy Coal Plant would be a great idea, but I could have sworn that it was purchased by another entity about a year ago... I am afraid I don't remember who. Did this sale fall through? "




Lud Larson wrote on Jan 14, 2009 4:42 AM:

" Why not put a bid in for The Healy Coal Plant?The State just my give it to MEA instead of giving it to Golden Valley. Is anyone looking into this latest State Giveaway? "




Raised Rates wrote on Jan 13, 2009 11:18 PM:

" Like it or not but no decision the board makes could have prevented the rate increases we will be seeing over the next few years; we are contractually obligated to buy power from Chugach through 2014. End of Story. What I want to ask the geniuses blaming it all on the MEA Board is this - if Chugach is having to raise rates because of increased costs, what makes you think that we, generating less power so not benefiting from any economy of scale, could do it for less. With local generation, our rates go even higher. End of Story. "




Part Three wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:45 PM:

" Lastly... none of you have managed to provide one factual detail as to your objection of the current board majority. I know every board member personally, on both sides, and they all have the same plan in mind for MEA: reliable and affordable power. While their approaches may differ, one thing is quite clear, the new board majority is far from incompetent, stupid, or unable to do their job [represent the MEA Ratepayers]. So here is a challenge for the commentors: Is it possible for you to make a point, backed up with facts, without just calling people names? "




Part Two wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:39 PM:

" Fourth, the new board majority has done absolutely nothing to prevent the construction of a new generation facility. What they have done is question the multiple budgetting omissions in the original MEA cost estimates including carbon taxes, realistic fuel costs, fuel supply issues, incomplete plant locaiton surveys, and accurate funding projections. All issues that the 2007 borad minority questioned and the 2007 board majority rubber stamped. Fifth, building a power plant isn't like building a garage; MEA has no infrastructure in place for the complex maintenance system that must exist for power generation... Continued "




Where to begin... wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:33 PM:

" First, it was the RCA that filed the press release yesterday. Second, the rate increase was filed as a temporary rate increase for Jan 1 - Mar 31, 09 due to fuel cost increases. This rate increase would also exist for MEA if they were producing power, and, has no current bearing as MEA wouldn't even have completed its permitting process for their two proposed plants. So the increase would have happend regardless of the board. Third, an average home should only be using around 400KWh/mo which will result in a $11 increase in rates... Continued... "




To Please Rusty wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:24 PM:

" "So far my rates haven't gone up..." According to tonight's news, that is going to change in your next MEA bill. A 34% rate increase! Why? Because this stupid board won't do anything about getting MEA away from dependency on Chugach by building our own generating capacity. "




Sure Rusty wrote on Jan 13, 2009 5:03 PM:

" The members wouldn't notice the difference between MEA and Chugach N.E. Division. Except maybe the lack of drama in the local papers. "




Mr. Maintenance wrote on Jan 13, 2009 4:20 PM:

" Your ½ right Rusty. It sounds pretty inhumane to allow a slow, painful death. “…most incompetent board majority in the history of MEA.” You really need to bone up on your MEA board history. How ‘bout those guys that rubber stamped a “New Generation” infrastructure? "




Ms Educated wrote on Jan 13, 2009 3:52 PM:

" To "Please Rusty" & Co.: Boy are you in for a little treat! Because MEA is forced to buy its power from Chugach becuase you imbeciles refute any chance at building our own generation plant, our rates are going up an average of $26.00/household! MEA released a press release yesterday saying that Chugach has hiked its rates 30%.THAT MEANS WE PAY MORE! Looks like the board you think is so "transparent" isn't doing any good at all. What a bunch of morons. You must be on the MEA Board of Directors, with that idiocy spewing from your mouth! "




Half Million wrote on Jan 13, 2009 1:43 PM:

" Seriously? Does Wayne Carmony actually think that we believe he cares about $500,000 / yr. This is the MEA Director that has renegotiated multi-million dollar loans to significantly higher rates to avoid federal reporting. Let's not even discuss the hundreds of thousands spent on frivilous lawsuits. Or, how about the fact that his 5-year employement contract automatically renews every single year unless the board takes a vote specifically not to renew it... Nah, Mr. Carmony definately cares about ratepayer money. It is so refreshing to know that the current board is holding Mr. Carmony accountable for his actions. "




Furthermore Rusty... wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:55 AM:

" In addition, the minority, before the election, said that the new majority wanted to do nothing more than fire Carmony... Notice how the new board hasn't made any poor actions in haste, and have made every effort to work with Carmony and the current management. They have given him every opportunity to explain his positions and discuss issues with the ratepayer representatives dispite the disrespect he regularly demonstrates to them. I, for one, am proud of the responsible actions of the new board majority. "




Please Rusty wrote on Jan 13, 2009 8:50 AM:

" Please Rusty, share with us why you feel this board majority is incompetent? So far, this new majority has done exactly what they were elected to do: Add transparency to the decision process, cut pointless litigation by management, and attempt to put together a real long-term power generation plan. So far my rates haven't gone up, my service hasn't suffered, and MEA contiues to function... in other words, everything that the minority said would happen - hasn't. So please Rusty, explain your opinion of incompetence. "




Rusty wrote on Jan 13, 2009 6:10 AM:

" What you are witnessing here folks is the slow and painful death of your Electric Coop by the most incompetent board majority in the history of MEA. "




Topper wrote on Jan 12, 2009 10:45 PM:

" While events continue to move at a glacially slow pace at MEA, at least MEA's actions the past couple of years are being exposed by new board members. The coal plant is dead as much as Carmony tried to make it happen. Now the gas plant is on tap, yet MEA has no access to gas. Perhaps there are other options out there that will work. Let's hope the new board gets around to that. Carmony remains the main impediment to a reasonable electric utility. "