What isn't subsidized?

People complain about subsidies to industries they don't like, but they are mute when it comes to subsidies they do like.

Republicans made a big fuss about the federal loan to Solyndra, which is in bankruptcy.  But we hear little from Republicans about the subsidies to nuclear energy, including where to store the waste.  Some Democrats decry the subsidies to the oil and gas industries.  But we hear little from them about the subsidies to public transportation.

The real question about subsidies is do they advance the common good or do they advance some private gain.  The general answer is a little bit of both.  The trick is to have subsidies that really advance the common good and that have private gain as a small by-product.

An example of proper balance between common good and private gain is fire departments.  The common good is to have people and equipment ready to contain fires and hazardous materials spills.  The private gain is to the manufacturers of all the equipment that a fully-prepared fire department needs.

I was reminded of this problem by "Northstar cuts fares by as much as 25% to lure more riders", Pat Doyle, Star Tribune, 2012-07-05/06.

For a variety of reasons, ridership on Northstar commuter rail between Big Lake and Minneapolis has been declining.  The costs of the Northstar are 80% subsidized by government.  Certain people will jump on this and say it should pay its own way.

However, some of these same people will jump in their cars and never think of all the subsidies that make driving a car "economical".  First, it is local government subsidies that pay for the streets in front of their houses from the construction to snow plowing and much in between.  Second, county, state, and federal governments pay for all the highways that connect neighborhoods with business districts and with other cities.  The state and federal gas taxes pay for only a small portion of these costs.  On top of this is the enforcement of traffic laws and the investigation and cleanup of crashes.

The "pay its own way" people don't realize that they derive benefit from public transportation.  Just think, when a subsidized bus with 25 passengers passes on the shoulder all these drivers stuck in a jam, it is carrying 25 people who would have made the jam even worse if they had driven instead of taking the bus.

Another subsidy of the highway system that few think about is the removal from the tax rolls of private property.  Whole neighborhoods have been destroyed to make way for six lanes, no, now we need eight, oops ten lanes to accommodate people who live farther and farther out.  Some of these people have been forced to move farther out because their homes were in the path of the highway.  I think of the lost property tax every time I enter the vast expanse of the 35E/694 interchange in the Twin Cities area.  One could put a small city in that space.

And the final subsidy of the highway system is the protection of oil availability.  People will argue around and around about whether wars were fought solely to protect oil sources, but we would still need a navy of some size to keep the shipping lanes open and safe.  Ever hear of Somalian pirates?

Oil! Republican dependency on fantasy

Rep. Chip Cravaack, R-MN8, claims to be an independent voice for his constituents but he seems to be sticking to the ALEC and Koch brothers line.  ALEC is American Legislative Exchange Council that is an organization of big businesses to write laws in their interests rather than the public interest.

One is his recent republishing in his newsletter of his op-ed article in the Duluth News Tribune, "Reducing regulations, expanding U.S. drilling will lower gas prices".  He also republished it on his Congressional web site!  See http://cravaack.house.gov/in-the-news/reducing-regulations-expanding-us-drilling-will-lower-gas-prices/.  Hm, I'm supposed to give exclusive rights to the News Tribune for my submissions, and so I do not re-post my submissions on my blog.

Back to the subject.

As to be expected in election year, the opposition gets all the blame for any problems.  Cravaack blames Obama for high gas prices, but he ignores the high gas prices during Bush's terms.  In both cases, there are many more factors contributing to gas prices.

How about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Not only do these create uncertainty in energy markets, they add enormously to the demand for fuel.  Wouldn't it be grand if all those humvees, fighter jets, and drones could run on the hot air coming out of Congress?

How about the cost of drilling?  As the easily accessible oil is depleted, it cost lots more to get the remainder.  And these costs will go up as the oil becomes even less accessible.  Right now it costs $60 a barrel to extract gulf oil (see "Two dollars a gallon gasoline?  No way!").  But will world markets price oil only a little bit above that?  I doubt it.

Reducing regulations won't really change the price of oil; it might if Congress mandated that no oil could be imported or exported.  Do you think the large oil companies would go for that?  Right now, gasoline is being EXPORTED from the U.S.  Oil and gasoline are world commodities.  If somebody in India, say, is willing to pay $3.28 per gallon (today's NYMEX price, not including shipping) to import a tanker of gasoline, do you think any U.S. gasoline refiner is going to charge less in the United States?

Cravaack points out how the U.S. investment in Solyndra and Fisker automotive went sour.  How many energy investments have done well?  He is silent on oil depletion allowances and other tax breaks the oil industry gets.  He is silent on the huge investment in nuclear energy research made by the U.S. Government.  He is silent on the cost of nuclear waste, most of which will be borne by the U.S. Government.  He is silent on the loan guarantees that have gone to nuclear power plants.  He is silent on the huge cost in health and other externalities of burning fossil fuel.

He faults the secretary of energy, Steven Chu, when asked if his goal was to lower gas prices, he said, “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil.”  Does Cravaack live in a bubble?  How many wars are we going to fight to ensure access to oil?  How much are we going to go into debt to finance these wars?  How many people are going to die for "lower gas prices"?  If we can reduce our dependency on oil faster than India or China can, we will be at a huge economic and foreign policy advantage.

Why no military can be trusted

No military can admit a weakness.  It can be exploited by an enemy.  Therefore a military must hide problems from its own country.

I mused upon this from a comment in a University for Seniors class at the University of Minnesota, Duluth.  The class is "The Future of Energy".  One of the members pointed out that the U.S. Navy has been running ship-born nuclear reactors and has had no nuclear accidents.

Who says so?  The U. S. Navy.  Why?  If there are any problems, they can't let them be known to potential enemies.  Therefore, besides its bureaucratic interest, the U. S. Navy cannot admit any problems to the U. S. public.

However, there are always leaks.  See "WHEN INCIDENTS ARE ACCIDENTS: The Silent Saga of the Nuclear Navy".

Remember, SNAFU, FUBAR, and other pejoratives are about the fallibility of the military.  If the Right says that government can't do anything right, why does the Right insist that the military can do it right?

Nuclear plants and childhood leukemia, a tenuous link

A new French study has shown that incidents of childhood leukemia are twice as high within 5 km of nuclear plants. See "Child leukemia doubles near French nuclear plants", Reuters, 2012-01-12. Hoo boy! Maybe we can get the damn things shut down!

But, wait a minute! We're still talking about some very small number of cases. Fourteen! 14! Similar studies have found no significant radiation increases near nuclear plants. Could there be another explanation?

"German study finds nuclear energy causes leukemia… or maybe not…" suggests that nuclear plants are in industrial areas, some of which have had severe pollution from other sources, like munition plants. Second, poorer people tend to live near these areas and for a variety of reasons tend to have more health issues, for example, more parents who smoke.

I checked Google for "smoking leukemia" and was given over six million items. Here's one from an "unimpeachable" source - "Kids' Leukemia Risk Tied to Dad's Smoking", Fox News, 2011-12-15 (actually from Reuters). The risk is given as 15 percent higher if the father smokes. The sample size was 400 for children with leukemia and 800 for children without.

I think these cases show that people shouldn't leap to alarmist positions nor should they be quick to dismiss indications of a problem. Unfortunately, our political climate leads to uncritical acceptance of one position or the other.

Nuclear energy and floods - everything has been taken care of

Nuclear plants around the country are in flood plains, and some have had barriers placed around them.  One barrier sprang a leak when a worker accidentally punctured it.  However, nuclear plant operators are saying there is nothing to concerned about, including Xcel Energy in Minnesota, which has had a faulty back-up switch for years.

Be sure to consider the "first fully automated passenger plane".  "Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the world's first fully automated passenger plane.  There is no crew on board and everything has been put in the control of fully tested computer systems.  So, please sit back and relax, and relax, and relax, …"

Attention, a second Fukushima is possible

This is my quick, summary translation of highlights of "Attention, un deuxième Fukushima n'est pas exclu" by Miho Matsunuma, LeMonde, 2011-04-27.  She was a professor of Western History and French Language at Fukuoka Women's University and is now a senior lecturer at the University of Gunma in Maebashi, Japan.

Although the Japanese media is now criticizing the government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), they have long colluded with them on the benefits of nuclear energy.  First, they too often accept the pronouncements of the government and TEPCO about the safety.  Second, the operators of the power stations are big advertisers.

There is no excuse for the Japanese not knowing of the dangers.  Japan is neither a soviet regime nor a dictatorship, but a country with democratic institutions, elections, and a free press.  Fukushima is not the first nuclear accident.  Citizens and scientists have sounded the alarm many times without being heard.  In this country where order and conformism reign, the minorities have difficulty making themselves heard.  The Japanese, in their majority, have voluntary believed the official speeches on the necessity and the advantage of nuclear energy perfectly mastered.

What do we do with the power stations operating in the country?  Japan is situated at the juncture of three great tectonic plates and, given the lack of competence and credibility of the Japanese nuclear authorities, the probability of a second and a third Fukushima is not unthinkable.  And the problem is not only Japanese: our planet lives with time bombs.

She goes on that Japanese democracy is not going to solve these problems.  It is necessary that the international community puts pressure on Japan to not drag humanity into a collective suicide.

The political authorities and international industrialists, who are involved in nuclear energy, have good reasons to support the power stations and admire the Japanese "dignity".  The citizens of the world must, themselves, draw lessons from this shameful accident.

Herr Doktor Professor, what will you keep it in?

On reading "Fukushima shines light on U.S. problem: 63,000 tons of spent fuel", Mike M. Ahlers, CNN, 2011-03-30, I thought of this anecdote I first saw in Mad Magazine decades ago.

A well-known, respected professor is working in his lab when the village idiot comes in to sweep.  The lad asks him what he is doing, but the professor says he is too busy.  Once again, the sweeper comes in, asks the same question, and is brushed off.  Then one day as the lad is sweeping, the professor yells, "Eureka!  I've invented the universal solvent!"  The lad asks, "Herr Doktor Professor, what will you keep it in?"

The last frame shows a foaming, bubbling earth.

Why is nuclear energy so popular among some politicians?

Because it is anti-free market.

Anti-free market?  How can that be?  We have legislatures dominated by free-market proponents.

How many large companies stand to benefit from nuclear power?  You don't need to use more than one hand to count them.

How many medium and small companies benefit from wind and solar?  Lots and lots.

A free market has many buyers and many sellers.  If you have a few sellers, the market is not so free.

It is the interest of ever-larger corporations to become even larger.  Larger corporations give larger donations.

Nuclear power companies probably have given some very large political donations.

Can the wind energy market give such large donations?

Now you know why the push for nuclear energy.

Our way is good; your way is bad

There is a guy going around with a video camera, setting up crazy situations, and getting people to say silly things.  He then publishes his videos and the right jumps over the follies of the few as indicative of how bad the whole organization is.  He did it against ACORN and now he has done it against NPR.  ACORN has closed its doors; NPR will probably survive because it has many well-heeled supporters.

However, if somebody entraps a Republican like Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, it's called unfair and brushed off as inconsequential.

Subsidies for green energy are bad; energy costs should be determined by free market forces.

But the same people who say this want to supply subsidies to the oil and nuclear industries.

Interestingly, the nuclear industry is not supported by the free market; banks and investors think they are too risky.  See "Japan disaster may mean setback for U.S. nuclear energy", Washington Post, Jia Lynn Yang, 2011-03-13.

Nuclear weapons and climate change - is there a connection?

Of course, any nuclear weapon going off is going to generate a lot of heat that will have some effect on global warming. I wonder if anybody has calculated that effect.

However, there is a more roundabout connection between nuclear weapons and global warming.

First, what is the effect of nuclear power on global warming? Nuclear reactors give off lots of heat. Why else do they have those humongous cooling towers? They are often if not always located by a body of water, either a river or an ocean. They need that water for cooling. What is the effect downstream of the warmer water? An ocean location is less of a problem because the heat is diffused more quickly; given the size of the oceans this may be insignificant in comparison to other factors warming the oceans.

Second, some nations are justifying their processing of nuclear material as for peaceful purposes - medicine and power. Are thousands of nuclear fuel centrifuges needed for medical purposes? If the nuclear material is to be used for power, are the plants located near water? If so, what change in temperature will there be in that water and how will it affect surrounding areas?

Third, what is the opportunity cost of nuclear weapons? Where could the money needed to create, maintain, protect, and deliver nuclear weapons be used more constructively? For example, how many desalinization plants could be built from the cost of a single nuclear weapon? How many miles of irrigation pipes could be constructed to bring that water inland? How many thousands of bushels of crops could be raised if that water were available? How much would the water evaporated from those crops help reduce global warming? How many people are even thinking seriously about such possibilities?

See also
New spear proliferation
Does "green energy" use too much water?
The nuclear option
Mission Impossible: Global warming debunking debunking

And for many, many more opinions on climate change, visit http://www.blogactionday.org.

Does "green energy" use too much water?

Today's Star Tribune Business section had an opinion article, "Saving droplets but losing gallons" by Samuel Lieberman.

He writes that ethanol and nuclear power consume too much water.

"[E]nergy production accounts for 39 percent of freshwater use, or 190 billion gallons per day."

and

"When it comes to thirsty energy, ethanol (2,000 gallons of water per gallon of gasoline) and nuclear power (millions of gallons of water per day) are the most prodigious users. Ethanol should be eliminated and nuclear power should be downsized, and the money and water should be reallocated to more efficient options, such as natural gas and geothermal energy."

I would assume water consumption would apply to any biomass fuel. It needs the water to grow.

But would any biofuel be that much a water consumer, whether ethanol or any other carbohydrate-based fuel. When these are burned they are converted into carbon dioxide and water. Both would be put into the atmosphere and in turn consumed by plants again. Would there be a balance point that plants would consume all the carbon dioxide that humans created and the water would turn into sufficient rain for all uses? That would make an interesting equation.

Then too the water used to cool nuclear plants would also be put back into the entire system. Would the water used in this way be hotter or cooler than the water given all in burning hydrocarbons or carbohydrates?

Possibly the problem is that the recycling is not occurring fast enough. How quickly does the water that we use get back into the watersheds that it came from? And how pure will it be?

An example of the recycling not occurring fast enough is the Himalayas. The snows of the Himalayas were once adequate to provide water to Tibet and other mountain countries as well as India and China. But no longer. Lieberman writes:
"China's recent clash with Tibet was incorrectly ascribed to human rights issues. It was about rights -- water rights. China needs access to Tibet's formerly ample surplus. Tibet's water, which comes from the Himalayas, is waning, so it is unwilling to help its thirsty neighbor."

Maybe the greatest peace activity that the U. S. can do is to have a crash project to find cheap ways to desalinate ocean water and move it far inland. If the Romans with their technology could move water from the mountains to Rome; is it such a far reach for modern technology to move water from the oceans to the mountains? I think the total human cost of not doing something like this is greater than the cost of doing it.

Debt bad, nuclear power good?

Many are promoting nuclear power as one of the solutions to global warming or energy independence or both. As with many issues, proponents look on the up side but not the down side.

This thought was triggered by "Nuclear power is still loaded with problems", Ken Bradley and Monique Sullivan, Star Tribune, 2009-03-05

Interestingly, nuclear power plants won't be built without government subsidies, further increasing future debt.

I scribbled in the margin of the paper, "If it is bad to leave a huge government debt to future generations, why is it OK to leave the problem of nuclear waste to more distant future generations."

For more of my thoughts on this, see "http://www.cpinternet.com/~mdmagree/nuclear_option_2008-06-19.html ", Reader Weekly, 2008-06-19

Nuclear wolves in carbon-neutral sheeps' clothing

The January-February 2008 Utne Reader has a cover article on "The Nuclear Option, Pros, Cons, and Corporate Spin". It points out that some environmentalists are considering nuclear energy as a way to put less carbon in the atmosphere. Of course, nuclear energy proponents have pointed out the same thing.

But there are two things that keep getting downplayed. One, what happens to the waste? Two, what is the true efficiency of nuclear reactors?

First, where does the waste go? Nobody seems to have a good, safe solution. I did a web search on nuclear waste, adding the keywords Japan, France, and Sweden because these countries derive a larger percentage of their energy from nuclear plants. I didn't find anything positive. In fact, a Japanese mayor lost his job because he proposed a study of using his city as a nuclear waste storage area. It seems that nuclear waste just keeps getting palmed off on somebody else, with no guarantees for safety for thousands of years.

Second, what is the efficiency of nuclear reactors? One measure is the amount of usable energy obtained versus the amount of non-captured heat given off. I came across this question when I saw the CNET article "A personal nuclear reactor? Not so fast!"

The article discussed a proposed nuclear reactor for factories or neighborhoods. It said the 200 kilowatt electrical output gives off 5 megawatts of heat. That still sounds like global warming. Consider the size of the cooling stacks of nuclear plants. That steam coming from those stacks also means a lot of water is being dumped into the atmosphere. This also means less water for drinking and irrigation.

A Republican president proposed an interstate highway system that transformed our culture. The rationale to get it through Congress was not transportation efficiency or creation of jobs, but defense. It would greatly increase the ability of the military to move troops and equipment around the country. Unfortunately, it was counterproductive to our defense because it made us hostage to countries with oil.

We now need a president of any party to cast energy conservation and energy independence as important to our defense. There are plenty of journalists pointing this out, but very few politicians seem to be reading them.