DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on May 21, 2007, 06:10:48 PM
-
What do YOU think?
My big fat American gas tax
Should Americans consider a big price hike in an attempt to reduce demand and transfer money from Big Oil to the general public?
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
May 21 2007: 4:35 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It seems completely counterintuitive: Raise the gasoline tax to help American commuters.
Motorists are already paying well over $3 a gallon, and there are signs that it's beginning to cut into demand and hurt consumer spending.
But if a big gas tax was levied - like the $1 or $2 tax Europeans have to keep prices permanently over $3 or $4 a gallon - how could that possibly help American consumers?
One argument says a tax would crimp demand, lowering wholesale prices.
"Anybody with any brains has advocated that, but not the politicians." said Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at the financial services company Oppenheimer.
Lower wholesale prices, which would mean less profits for oil firms, combined with a higher tax could transfer money from Big Oil to the government, which could then use the cash for public programs.
Consumers would have to pay the same amount - or even more than now - but at least that extra cash could be returned to them in some way.
It might be used as a tax credit to offset the sting for those with a lower income, countering one of the most common arguments against such a tax. It could also go towards improvements in mass transit, expanded student loans or lower health insurance premiums.
Lower gasoline consumption would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a growing concern in the face of global warming.
"We still don't pay very much in gas taxes," said Lee Schipper, research director at Embarq, the World Resources Institute's Center for Sustainable Transport.
While wholesale prices for gasoline are generally the same in Europe as they are in the U.S., Schipper noted the $5, $6 or $7 a gallon Europeans pay, thanks to the high tax.
Americans, by contrast, pay a federal tax of about 18 cents a gallon. State taxes vary but are generally lower than 40 cents a gallon.
"As long as the marginal cost of driving is so low, the big changes aren't going to happen," said Schipper, who supports both a larger U.S. gas tax and more fuel-efficient vehicles.
By big changes, he means driving attitudes that more closely resemble Europe's, where he said there are 30 percent fewer cars per person, 30 percent fewer miles traveled per car and cars that use 30 percent less fuel.
Now sure, it may be easier for the Europeans to do this. The continent is more densely populated, and development has historically been more clustered in towns. Public transport is undeniably better. But whether this is a result of their high taxes is debatable.
Schipper said the European gas taxes were instituted in the 1920's, primarily as a luxury tax on automobiles, which were then mostly toys for the rich.
The relatively vast network of rail lines were already laid, and gasoline tax revenue was directed to general state coffers. Even today, gas taxes go to the state's general budget and are not specifically marked for mass transit or other environmental projects.
Still, he believes the high taxes have encouraged people to live closer to city centers and to buy cars that get better mileage.
"If gasoline was always expensive, you have to conclude that some of that had an impact," he said. "What Europe realized is they could steer consumption, not just raise money."
Others aren't so convinced.
Denny Ellerman, a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management, also noted that the rail lines were already built before the gas tax. He also pointed to the terrible auto congestion in cities like London and Paris, and that Europeans don't appear to be deterred from heading out to the suburbs, which require a longer commute.
Ellerman said urban sprawl, while not matching the extent of the U.S., is increasing. He said it has yet to reach American levels - not because of higher fuel prices- but due mainly to higher land prices and lower income.
As far as instituting a bigger gas tax in this country goes, he wasn't for it.
He said most everyone has to use gas, and taxing it would hit the poor the hardest.
Ellerman also thought there were too many other variables for a gas tax to result in lower wholesale prices. Supplier nations like OPEC could simply cut production, or other nations could take advantage of falling demand and prices in the U.S. to use more themselves.
So could a gas tax result in lower wholesale prices and the resulting transfer in money to the government from oil companies? "That's absolutely fantastic thinking," he said.
Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/21/news/international/europe_gas/index.htm?cnn=yes
-
Vice President Bush proposed this during the Reagan administration.
He was pilloried.
-
Ok, but what do YOU think, Plane?
-
I would rather give windfall profits to the oil companies vs the government. They are more egalitarian.
-
A higher price for gasoline won't hurt all that much , last I heard we are not buying less yet.
The harm would come from giving more money to the government.
-
Let's follow a train of thought here, just for discussion purpsoes:
Let's say we added a $1.00 per gallon tax, the funds to be directed to <pick the acoount, Social Security, Support Canada, Give to XO's private college in FL, BT's "dark" fund, Plane's "I would judst love to get my piloyt's license but currently cannot afford it" account, or the Prof's "I am currently adding two rooms onto my home and the money doesn't stretch far enough, gold ole Medicare, Fatman's "Support Seatlle" fund, JS's "Eurocentric not Americentric or Die campaign", Sir's "I need ot purchase many newspapers so I cna get more comics for my AWESOME posts, the Henny "Support Amman, he's our Man" fund or ????)>.
Would THAT approach reduce consumption, thereby lowering oil prices, therefore lessening our dependence upon Mideast oil?
-
Let's say we added a $1.00 per gallon tax, the funds to be directed to <pick the acoount, Social Security, Support Canada, Give to XO's private college in FL, BT's "dark" fund, Plane's "I would judst love to get my piloyt's license but currently cannot afford it" account, or the Prof's "I am currently adding two rooms onto my home and the money doesn't stretch far enough, gold ole Medicare, Fatman's "Support Seatlle" fund, JS's "Eurocentric not Americentric or Die campaign", Sir's "I need ot purchase many newspapers so I cna get more comics for my AWESOME posts, the Henny "Support Amman, he's our Man" fund or ?)>.
Would THAT approach reduce consumption, thereby lowering oil prices, therefore lessening our dependence upon Mideast oil?
First of all: LOL.
Secondly, my answer is "No."
Let's consider a few things.
Disclaimer: for my own selfish interests, if you raise it much more how the hell will I get to work? I mean, I already drive a car that gets 30+ mpg and I don't have much more I can cut back on at home! Raising two kids on a civil servant salary is not easy. Thanks to Americans general dislike for Mass Transit, we have no trains out here - yet (had to throw in my Eurocentric piece!).
OK, back to the point.
First, we need to take into account just how much oil the United States imports from the Middle East. According to the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/50129e5e-9a88-11db-bbd2-0000779e2340.html) the percentage imported from OPEC increased to a new high of 52%, but in fairness that increase was primarily due to Angola's inclusion in OPEC (and Angola is not a Mideast nation).
Second, Americans haven't really shown any desire to consume less petroleum. Unlike the British, who actually held Petrol strikes and protests - these were middle class, right-wing Tory voters! - Americans pretty much reacted by pulling out their wallets and paying more for fuel (and all the other products that higher energy costs affect).
Third, like indirect sin taxes the additional fuel taxes would have to be massive to change behaviors. Taxes on tobacco and alcohol have never been shown to change behaviors of consumers on a large scale. In fact, just like sin taxes, gasoline tax will only harm the poor and lower classes the worst as a purely regressive tax.
-
A higher price for gasoline won't hurt all that much , last I heard we are not buying less yet.
The harm would come from giving more money to the government.
It is arrogant of you to throw around the word "hurt" as if it were some single universal quality that you would then presume to quantify (" . . . all that much") as a means of dismissal (poof).
How do you think small business will do with raised gas prices? Big business will suffer (periodic fealty to the kings of Oil) but will survive, and they will gain because the pesky small competition is suddenly smaller.
The key element of Republican capitalism seems to be one of eliminating the competition with no overkill limitation.
Are you ready for WalMart World when all the other guys are gone?
Here, locally, Publix, the major food store in Florida, makes little street corner markets and people selling produce out of the back of their pick-up trucks victims of local police harassment. They can sell, the thugs with badges tell them, but they must provide a portopotty in case the customers, going home but stopping for tomatoes, suddenly decide to take a quick number one or two. "That's the law," they say. They do not admit that Publix is behind the legal surge.
Nothing is above Publix.
The founder, recently dead, was a bigotted fascist southern boy. They fought long and hard to deny hiring females, then against salary parity to females, and had to have their arms twisted to hire a darkie.
Know what I mean?
Wonder how close Cheney is in proximity to sudden new gas prices?
Cheney more than any other man in America, in govt or out, is THE corporate representative in America. Cheney is corporate america made manifest. That is why, surrounded by a down-swirling flush of fecal corruption in the Administration, everybody, even reporters, do not hold him to account. They do not hold him to account because they do not hold corporate america to account.
Meanwhile, very few items in all the stores are not going to go up as a result of higher fuel prices.
The three top oil companies in America made a combined total profit of $72 billion last year.
Doesn't hurt them. Maybe that's who you were talking about?
-
No matter how awful Publix is, the alternative Winn-Dixie, is worse. Worse store brands, higher prices, and a tendency to price stuff 79¢ on the shelf and 99¢ in the register computer. If you dare protest getting swindled out of that 20¢, you will have to wait for at least ten minutes for a price check.
Anyone who has worked for Winn Dixie and Publix, or Publix and Sedano's, Tropical, or the other numerous local markets will tell you Publix is better by far to work for. True, they aren't perfect, and every Soputhern businessman of Jenkins' age was a howling bigot.
Most of the Latino markets in Miami do NOT have public bathrooms. Winn_Dixie does, buyt they hide them really well in all of the older stores.
I don't think the gas tax is the answer, either. I would say that a windfall profits tax would be a good place to start, as would a =n accelerated program to produce biodiesel as well as methanol and ethanol from not just corn, but other more productive plants as well.
Even importing ethanol from Brazil with no duty would be better than what Juniorbush and Cheney are doing, which is doodly-squat, as Babs and Olebush roll in oil money like Scrooge McDuck.
-
The three top oil companies in America made a combined total profit of $72 billion last year.
And that figure still only represents a profit of about 10% - much less than computer companies or your typical grocery store.
-
Fatman's "Support Seatlle" fund,
Egads!! How have I offended you Professor, that you would think that would support Seattle? I live between Seattle and Bellingham, up against the Cascade foothills, with nary a latte stand to be seen. (Just kidding with you Prof, but honestly, I don't know which are the worse drivers, the Seattlites or the Canadians down from BC).
-
A higher price for gasoline won't hurt all that much , last I heard we are not buying less yet.
The harm would come from giving more money to the government.
It is arrogant of you to throw around the word "hurt" as if it were some single universal quality that you would then presume to quantify (" . . . all that much") as a means of dismissal (poof).
If there is another dollar per gallon of cost the price will approach what it has been in Europe since twenty years ago.
At all levels of the public, business and government where fuel is bought the hurt could be coped with here as it has been in Europe .
A gallon of gas is still a bargain compared to its alternatives but the alternatives are starting to look better .
If we increase the tax on imported Gas ,but decrease the tax on imported ethanol (good suggestion XO) the effective government subsidy will be reduced and the net effect might be a fairer competition between the two.
-
At all levels of the public, business and government where fuel is bought the hurt could be coped with here as it has been in Europe .
Europe is not a fair comparison as they have alternatives to driving an automobile. European mass transit is far superior to American mass transit systems. In the United States the alternative does not exist (or at least for a much higher percentage of the population) and that has an impact on the economics of the additional fuel tax.
-
At all levels of the public, business and government where fuel is bought the hurt could be coped with here as it has been in Europe .
Europe is not a fair comparison as they have alternatives to driving an automobile. European mass transit is far superior to American mass transit systems. In the United States the alternative does not exist (or at least for a much higher percentage of the population) and that has an impact on the economics of the additional fuel tax.
This is a chicken and egg question.
American citys that are hard to park in have public transport. Whwew the advantage of a bus is small the public prefers cars. Fuel prices can change this.
If the price of fuel rises there will be a greater demand for buses and converting a fleet of busses to alternative fuels or electric is not as difficult as converting a huge number of priviate vehicles.
-
American citys that are hard to park in have public transport. Whwew the advantage of a bus is small the public prefers cars. Fuel prices can change this.
If the price of fuel rises there will be a greater demand for buses and converting a fleet of busses to alternative fuels or electric is not as difficult as converting a huge number of priviate vehicles.
That is a possibility, true.
But you are talking about changing behaviors with a tax. My point is that in the present, the economics of the situation is not necessarily comparable between Europe and America as there is an alternative for the Europeans from their high gasoline prices (though their mass transit prices to consumers have increased significantly in recent years for specific reasons).
Predicting the behavioral adapations of Americans is speculative at this point. What is certain is that a significant increase in the tax will harm the lowest income drivers the most.
-
American citys that are hard to park in have public transport. Whwew the advantage of a bus is small the public prefers cars. Fuel prices can change this.
If the price of fuel rises there will be a greater demand for buses and converting a fleet of busses to alternative fuels or electric is not as difficult as converting a huge number of priviate vehicles.
That is a possibility, true.
But you are talking about changing behaviors with a tax. My point is that in the present, the economics of the situation is not necessarily comparable between Europe and America as there is an alternative for the Europeans from their high gasoline prices (though their mass transit prices to consumers have increased significantly in recent years for specific reasons).
Predicting the behavioral adapations of Americans is speculative at this point. What is certain is that a significant increase in the tax will harm the lowest income drivers the most.
I make this presumption based on the simularity of the situation in Europe , the cost of operateing a car is higher in Europe so they have fewer poor people owning two cars than we do.
I have freinds that can barely afford to keep their cars in repair and fuel , the marginal loose first.
-
I make this presumption based on the simularity of the situation in Europe , the cost of operateing a car is higher in Europe so they have fewer poor people owning two cars than we do.
The big difference, however, is that European cities are much closer together, and Europe in general is much more densly populated than the US.
Making mass transit work in the US is a much more difficult proposition.
-
I make this presumption based on the simularity of the situation in Europe , the cost of operateing a car is higher in Europe so they have fewer poor people owning two cars than we do.
The big difference, however, is that European cities are much closer together, and Europe in general is much more densly populated than the US.
Making mass transit work in the US is a much more difficult proposition.
With further to go , and higher fuel prices , mass transit will be more desired here than there because of our lower density.
There was a time when every American City had passenger rail service and "Whistle stop" was slang for a town too small for a regular service stop. We lost this and Europe didn't because we bought more cars.
You could still save fuel by rideing Amtrack between citys and renting a car when you arrived(or rideing the bus) , fuel cost is still too small a consideration to make many people consider the inconvience of such a plan worthwile.
But in Europe they never put their entire working class in cars , they will never miss what we had for a while.
-
There was a time when every American City had passenger rail service and "Whistle stop" was slang for a town too small for a regular service stop. We lost this and Europe didn't because we bought more cars.
This was never true in the west. There were many towns and cities in the west that had no rail service.
-
A gallon of gas is still a bargain compared to its alternatives but the alternatives are starting to look better .
===================================================================
For the past two weeks I have been driving without a drop of petroleum fuel.
Sun Biodiesel sells for $2.89 per gallon, just the same as dino diesel (which is between $2.92 and $3.20 here in Miami).
It is made from Ecuadorean palm oil. My exhaust smells like a fritanga stand.
It seems to be a lot cleaner than dino Diesel fuel, too.
-
There was a time when every American City had passenger rail service and "Whistle stop" was slang for a town too small for a regular service stop. We lost this and Europe didn't because we bought more cars.
This was never true in the west. There were many towns and cities in the west that had no rail service.
What was the largest city you know of that suffered from having no rail connection in the 40's?
The point is still valid as stated even if I am wrong about the universal nature of the service, we had a lot more then than now and the convenience of cars is most of the reason.
-
For the past two weeks I have been driving without a drop of petroleum fuel.
Gee, and weren't you on the "there is no choice" side of the argument that a choice exists for those who do not want to buy petroleum products?
-
What was the largest city you know of that suffered from having no rail connection in the 40's?
Santa Monica. They converted their rail station into a bus station in 1940.
The point is still valid as stated even if I am wrong about the universal nature of the service, we had a lot more then than now and the convenience of cars is most of the reason.
Granted. It was never universal, which led to the greater adoption of personal motor vehicles, IMNHO.
-
weren't you on the "there is no choice" side of the argument that a choice exists for those who do not want to buy petroleum products?
=========================
And there wasn't, until Sun Biodiesel opened a month ago, and I saw an article in the New Times.
I have two Diesel cars. Most people drive gassers. New Diesels are expensive, older ones are rather scarce. I had to look at about a dozen 300TD's before I bought my wagon. Most were in pretty bad repair, being 22 years or older.
Most people have gassers and therefore no real choice. Ethanol is a blend, so they are using petroleum even if they are burning E-85.
It is possible, but expensive and rather inconvenient, to convert a gasser to start on gasoline and run on natural gas or propane. This is available in most of Europe at every gas station, but not here.
-
What was the largest city you know of that suffered from having no rail connection in the 40's?
Santa Monica. They converted their rail station into a bus station in 1940.
The point is still valid as stated even if I am wrong about the universal nature of the service, we had a lot more then than now and the convenience of cars is most of the reason.
Granted. It was never universal, which led to the greater adoption of personal motor vehicles, IMNHO.
Nope, the egg was first.
-
And there wasn't, until Sun Biodiesel opened a month ago, and I saw an article in the New Times.
Actually, there was. But the nearest retailers were too far for you to justify driving there (you wanted to save money). Which I pointed out was your choice, not a requirement.
-
see http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/GasPricesHighButNotHighEnough.aspx for full article.
Gas prices high -- but not high enough
A stiff tax increase and $4-a-gallon fuel could end Americans' addiction to gas-hogging SUVs and curb dependence on OPEC. But don't count on politicians to line up for higher taxes.
The average price of a gallon of gas is now above $3. That's affecting some car buyers' choices, as it has done whenever gas prices have spiked in the past two years. But it's still not high enough to spur the needed transformation of the U.S. auto fleet to much higher average fuel economy.
And that brings me to gasoline taxes, the one obvious measure that would move the U.S. to energy independence from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and substantially limit U.S. exposure to the political and ideological whims of the Middle East and Venezuela.
But don't hold your breath. Republicans running for the White House are lining up to take pledges for no new taxes, no matter how badly they are needed. Connecticut is actually rolling back its state gas tax by 5 cents a gallon to throw a bone to voters. Oh boy -- 5 cents! Ridiculous!
Democrats are showing no more courage, though they are talking more about the need for greater fuel economy. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a presidential hopeful, is pushing for carbon taxes on auto makers. But he has said recently that "direct" taxes on consumers/voters aren't (politically) feasible. So much for "Profiles in Courage."
MSN Autos: Find the cheapest gas near you
Conversations I have had with congressional staffers and one prominent Democratic congressman tell me that polling data going back to the 1980s shows that no tax increase would be more unpopular with voters than a gas-tax increase.
It's working for Europe
Europe has an average fuel economy for its new-car fleet of more than 40 miles per gallon. The European Union years ago amassed support among members for high taxes on gasoline, which drove a swift migration from big cars to smaller cars and to diesel fuel. The result: less dependency on OPEC and cleaner air in the cities.
A congressional staffer told me that to get a gas-tax increase across to the American voter, the president would have to drive a bipartisan effort, with the Democratic and Republican leadership of Congress standing behind him as he addressed the country in a series of speeches explaining the need for a higher gasoline tax, and that both parties would have to sign an agreement that neither side would use the tax against the other party in ads or rhetoric.
-
This debate is much like the debate on taxing internet sales. Bottom line is the states and the fed are looking for additional revenue sources without having to provide a service to earn it.
You can dress a pig up and paint it with lipstick, but in the end it is still a pig.
you want a tax on gasoline. make it 25 cents per gallon and earmark it as a prize for the developer of the best alternative energy solution. ANd for petes sakes bring nuclear energy back on to the grid. That is if you want to be like europe.
-
Actually, there was. But the nearest retailers were too far for you to justify driving there (you wanted to save money). Which I pointed out was your choice, not a requirement.
Actually. there wasn't, because the nearest seller of biodiesel was in Jacksonville, which is a one-tank roundtrip from here.
-
Actually. there wasn't, because the nearest seller of biodiesel was in Jacksonville, which is a one-tank roundtrip from here.
You're in the Miami area, aren't you? There are retailers all over the area. Here is an article from a Miami source two years ago talking about the increased availability of biodiesel in the Miami area, driven mostly by boating enthusiasts. So, I would guess that it would be readily available around the various ports. I also found listing for a variety of retailers all over the state, one in Hialeah Gardens, which should also be in your area.
http://www.sailmiami.com/magazine/boating_news/biodiesel_sofla_boating05.shtml (http://www.sailmiami.com/magazine/boating_news/biodiesel_sofla_boating05.shtml)
-
Actually. there wasn't, because the nearest seller of biodiesel was in Jacksonville, which is a one-tank roundtrip from here.
Here's a list, though probably not definitive:
http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/showstate.asp?st=FL (http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingbiodiesel/retailfuelingsites/showstate.asp?st=FL)
-
That was helpful, actually. Thank you, Ami. I will check some of these out.
-
If there is a demand for bio diesel in an area with no supplyers , does this present an entrepreneurial opportunity?
-
This debate is much like the debate on taxing internet sales. Bottom line is the states and the fed are looking for additional revenue sources without having to provide a service to earn it.
You can dress a pig up and paint it with lipstick, but in the end it is still a pig.
you want a tax on gasoline. make it 25 cents per gallon and earmark it as a prize for the developer of the best alternative energy solution. ANd for petes sakes bring nuclear energy back on to the grid. That is if you want to be like europe.
One of the big problems with nuclear energy Bt, is that people do not want it near them. TVA tried a number of times to build new nuclear reactors in different areas of Tennessee, even in areas where people "supported" nuclear energy as an alternative energy resource. The problem they discovered was that even people who "support" the use of nuclear energy become some of the most vocal anti-nuclear energy folks when it is in their backyard. It seems to be one of those energies people support in theory, if you could place all the reactors on the surface of the moon!
The second major problem with them is that they don't make money and private companies run away from them unless they can receive large government subsidies. When the United Kingdom privatised her energy sector (which was almost entirely publicly owned in the 70's) they found almost no interest in the nuclear power plants. Those that did show interest wanted heavy government involvement.
The last problem is that they do have waste. It is true that they do not release the carbon dioxide of other power plants (and in fact newer plants release far less radioactive material into the air than current coal-fired power plants), but the waste nuclear power plants leave behind is solid waste and is an extremely nasty and harmful byproduct.
I think it is an interesting and probably superior alternative. Yet, far from a perfect solution.
-
I think it is an interesting and probably superior alternative. Yet, far from a perfect solution.
It may not be perfect, but it's the most viable energy generation we have until we can move to a hydrogen economy.
The cost problems are mostly an artifact of the extreme government control and oversight of the plants.
-
One problem is that the US nuclear industry supervision and training of its employees more closely resembles Chernobyl than it does the much more fail-safe systems used in France. In the US we have had incidents at Hansford Works and Three Mile Island, while in France, there have been no incidents.
I don't think I would want a nuclear plant next door to me, either. Not one like the US plants.
There is a reason why Homer Simpson and Montgomery Burns (get it? BURNS!) were cast as a nuclear power worker and his boss.
FPL's Turkey Point is fairly close to me.
-
If the French method is superior we should either outsource or license their protocol.
-
In the US we have had incidents at Hansford Works and Three Mile Island, while in France, there have been no incidents.
There have been more than 2 in the US. However, just because you didn't hear about them, doesn't mean that none have occured in France:
Grenoble, 1967/11/7
La Hague, 1968/10/2
St Laurent des Eaux, 1969/10/17
La Hague, 1980/9/22
La Hague, 1981/1/6
Blayas, 1983/10/1
Bruyere le Chatel, 1988/4/28
Fessenheim, 1990/5/26
Superphenix Fast Breeder Reactor, 1990/9/16
Blayais, 1990/12/4
Belleville, 1991/6/1
Dampierre, 1992/7/22
Paluel, 1993/1/20
Saint Alban, 1993/10/22
There have also been a bunch of incidents at the Gravelines facility, but they were all related to the cooling systems external to the reactor (so there was no likelyhood of them leading to a release of radioactives).
-
This debate is much like the debate on taxing internet sales. Bottom line is the states and the fed are looking for additional revenue sources without having to provide a service to earn it.
You can dress a pig up and paint it with lipstick, but in the end it is still a pig.
you want a tax on gasoline. make it 25 cents per gallon and earmark it as a prize for the developer of the best alternative energy solution. ANd for petes sakes bring nuclear energy back on to the grid. That is if you want to be like europe.
One of the big problems with nuclear energy Bt, is that people do not want it near them. TVA tried a number of times to build new nuclear reactors in different areas of Tennessee, even in areas where people "supported" nuclear energy as an alternative energy resource. The problem they discovered was that even people who "support" the use of nuclear energy become some of the most vocal anti-nuclear energy folks when it is in their backyard. It seems to be one of those energies people support in theory, if you could place all the reactors on the surface of the moon!
The second major problem with them is that they don't make money and private companies run away from them unless they can receive large government subsidies. When the United Kingdom privatised her energy sector (which was almost entirely publicly owned in the 70's) they found almost no interest in the nuclear power plants. Those that did show interest wanted heavy government involvement.
The last problem is that they do have waste. It is true that they do not release the carbon dioxide of other power plants (and in fact newer plants release far less radioactive material into the air than current coal-fired power plants), but the waste nuclear power plants leave behind is solid waste and is an extremely nasty and harmful byproduct.
I think it is an interesting and probably superior alternative. Yet, far from a perfect solution.
Perhaps extensive funding of cold fusion is in order?
-
This debate is much like the debate on taxing internet sales. Bottom line is the states and the fed are looking for additional revenue sources without having to provide a service to earn it.
You can dress a pig up and paint it with lipstick, but in the end it is still a pig.
you want a tax on gasoline. make it 25 cents per gallon and earmark it as a prize for the developer of the best alternative energy solution. ANd for petes sakes bring nuclear energy back on to the grid. That is if you want to be like europe.
One of the big problems with nuclear energy Bt, is that people do not want it near them. TVA tried a number of times to build new nuclear reactors in different areas of Tennessee, even in areas where people "supported" nuclear energy as an alternative energy resource. The problem they discovered was that even people who "support" the use of nuclear energy become some of the most vocal anti-nuclear energy folks when it is in their backyard. It seems to be one of those energies people support in theory, if you could place all the reactors on the surface of the moon!
The second major problem with them is that they don't make money and private companies run away from them unless they can receive large government subsidies. When the United Kingdom privatised her energy sector (which was almost entirely publicly owned in the 70's) they found almost no interest in the nuclear power plants. Those that did show interest wanted heavy government involvement.
The last problem is that they do have waste. It is true that they do not release the carbon dioxide of other power plants (and in fact newer plants release far less radioactive material into the air than current coal-fired power plants), but the waste nuclear power plants leave behind is solid waste and is an extremely nasty and harmful byproduct.
I think it is an interesting and probably superior alternative. Yet, far from a perfect solution.
Perhaps extensive funding of cold fusion is in order?
I like the idea , but fusion in compacted Plasma is better understood and more likely to gain success soon .
My favoriate idea is to exploit an hundred ideas , tide and wind and fission and fusion and geothermal and biomass and every other thing to produce a reliable mix of tecnologys rather than haveing all of our eggs in one tecnological basket .
But whichever technology bears fruit first or best should reap a bonus.