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?

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.

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.