NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Greenpeace via Jym Dyer
GREENPEACE REPORT EXPOSES TRUE COSTS OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER:
HALF-A-TRILLION DOLLARS SUNK, $97 BILLION OUT OF PUBLIC COFFERS
WASHINGTON, December 15, 1992 (GP) Greenpeace, in conjunction
with Komanoff Energy Associates (KEA), today released the first
definitive study of the accumulated costs of nuclear power in
the United States from 1950 through 1990.
Two years in production, the ground-breaking FISCAL FISSION:
THE ECONOMIC FAILURE OF NUCLEAR POWER writes the bottom line
for the massive government, industry and ratepayer investment
in commercial reactors. The report is coauthored by Charles
Komanoff and Cora Roelofs, leading energy-costing experts.
FISCAL FISSION shows that commercial atomic power has thus
far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which in the
form of federal subsidies.
"FISCAL FISSION is the first full-scale compilation of
taxpayer subsidies and utility investments in commercial
reactor technology," said Peter Grinspoon, Director of
Greenpeace's Nuclear Power Campaign. "Taxpayers and
ratepayers have pumped at least half-a-trillion dollars
into commercial atomic power since 1950 in exchange for
a declining 8% of our national energy supply."
According to co-author Cora Roelofs, "The cost estimates in
FISCAL FISSION are very conservative. They take only those
costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified.
It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers
an average of at least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour, far more
than other readily available fuels."
"This report teaches us that without even counting liabilities
such as accidents and waste, nuclear power has failed on
economic grounds," said Grinspoon. "Nuclear power is untenably
expensive and at best will play a dwindling role in the future
energy economy of this country. It simply can't compete."
Komanoff and Roelofs based their work on the massive database
built up by KEA over nearly two decades of studying the U.S.
nuclear power industry and serving as a prime source of
information on electrical generating costs. Komanoff has
published three books and numerous articles in technical
journals on the economic and environmental impacts of energy
supply and demand. In 1980, then-Governor Bill Clinton cited
Komanoff as "a leading nuclear power economist . . . [who]
dispelled the notion of 'cheap' nuclear power."
FISCAL FISSION finds that:
* From 1950 to 1990, U.S. taxpayers, consumers and investors
spent $492 billion to develop and obtain nuclear power. This
means that commercial nuclear generation during the entire
period 1950-1990 cost an average of 9.0 cents/kWh (all figures
are in 1990 dollars).
* Four-fifths of this amount, $396 billion, was expended by
utilities.
* The remaining 20%, $97 billion, was spent by the federal
government and, thus, borne by taxpayers.
* The $492 billion total represents a minimum figure for
resources spent on nuclear power through 1990. Excluded costs
could well total $375 billion dollars in categories such as
health effects of radiation, accidents, artificially low
insurance costs and support for foreign reactor development --
even without counting the almost certain escalation in future
waste and decommissioning costs.
* During 1968-1990 alone, $160 billion more was spent on nuclear
electric generation than would have been spent generating the
same electricity with fossil fuels.
"The money spent on nuclear power comes at the expense of the
development of safe, clean sources of electricity such as solar
and wind power," continued Grinspoon. "It's time to stop
throwing good money after bad."
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Peter Grinspoon, Jeanne Whalen (Greenpeace): 202/462-1177,
202/3192517
Harvey Wasserman (Greenpeace): 614/231-0507
Cora Roelofs, Charles Komanoff (Komanoff Energy Associates):
212/334-9767
Copies of the full report are available from the Greenpeace
office, 1436 U St., NW, Washington, DC 20009.
Richard A. Schumacher
environmental damage of all the fossil fuel plants in the US?
That is, from the ongoing release of millions of tons of CO2, thousands
of curies of low-level radioactives and tons of lead and cadmium as
contaminants in the coal? The 100,000 tons of nuclear waste generated
so far by commercial nuclear plants sounds like a lot, until you realize
that this would not quite fill ONE coal train.
Our grandchildren will hate us for not retiring carbon fueled
power plants as fast as possible. The only feasible alternative
is nuclear, as the French, Japanese and Koreans understand and as
their extensive experience demonstrates. We owe it to the Earth,
our fellow life-forms and our descendants to use clean nuclear
energy, even if it is more expensive than fossil fuels.
Russ Brown
>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>
>GREENPEACE REPORT EXPOSES TRUE COSTS OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER:
>HALF-A-TRILLION DOLLARS SUNK, $97 BILLION OUT OF PUBLIC COFFERS
>
>WASHINGTON, December 15, 1992 (GP) Greenpeace, in conjunction
>with Komanoff Energy Associates (KEA), today released the first
>definitive study of the accumulated costs of nuclear power in
>the United States from 1950 through 1990.
>
>Two years in production,
>the ground-breaking FISCAL FISSION:
>THE ECONOMIC FAILURE OF NUCLEAR POWER writes the bottom line
>for the massive government, industry and ratepayer investment
>in commercial reactors. The report is coauthored by Charles
>Komanoff and Cora Roelofs, leading energy-costing experts.
>FISCAL FISSION shows that commercial atomic power has thus
>far cost $492 billion dollars, $97 billion of which in the
>form of federal subsidies.
One assumes the Komanoff and Roelofs approached this problem without any
a priori position, and analyzed it with full objectivity.
>
>"FISCAL FISSION is the first full-scale compilation of
>taxpayer subsidies and utility investments in commercial
>reactor technology," said Peter Grinspoon, Director of
>Greenpeace's Nuclear Power Campaign. "Taxpayers and
>ratepayers have pumped at least half-a-trillion dollars
>into commercial atomic power since 1950 in exchange for
>a declining 8% of our national energy supply."
>
>According to co-author Cora Roelofs, "The cost estimates in
>FISCAL FISSION are very conservative. They take only those
>costs that could be fully documented and rigorously quantified.
>It shows that atomic-generated electricity has cost consumers
>an average of at least 9.0 cents a kilowatt-hour, far more
>than other readily available fuels."
>
>"This report teaches us that without even counting liabilities
>such as accidents and waste, nuclear power has failed on
>economic grounds," said Grinspoon. "Nuclear power is untenably
>expensive and at best will play a dwindling role in the future
>energy economy of this country. It simply can't compete."
>
With what can it not compete? Would it be fair to have it compete with
other _available_ energy sources?
>Komanoff and Roelofs based their work on the massive database
What is a "massive" database?
>built up by KEA over nearly two decades of studying the U.S.
>nuclear power industry and serving as a prime source of
>information on electrical generating costs.
Ah, the first subtle shift. Roelofs talks about the "declining 8% of
_our national energy supply_, i.e., total energy; KEA shifts to
_electrical generating costs_. One of these things is not like the
other. What, pray tell, is a "declining 8%"?
>FISCAL FISSION finds that:
>
>* From 1950 to 1990, U.S. taxpayers, consumers and investors
>spent $492 billion to develop and obtain nuclear power. This
>means that commercial nuclear generation during the entire
>period 1950-1990 cost an average of 9.0 cents/kWh (all figures
>are in 1990 dollars).
>
>* Four-fifths of this amount, $396 billion, was expended by
>utilities.
>
>* The remaining 20%, $97 billion, was spent by the federal
>government and, thus, borne by taxpayers.
>
1. Does the government cost exclude the fraction of the total atomic
energy program devoted to weapons?
2. Does the utility cost analysis include all of the capital and
operating costs through 1990 without consideration of the potential
earnings for projected plant lifetimes? If not, the $/kWhr are overstated.
>* The $492 billion total represents a minimum figure for
>resources spent on nuclear power through 1990. Excluded costs
>could well total $375 billion dollars in categories such as
>health effects of radiation, accidents, artificially low
>insurance costs and support for foreign reactor development --
>even without counting the almost certain escalation in future
>waste and decommissioning costs.
>
It would be too much to ask GP to document _any_ radiation health
effects..., but it would be interesting to see what they might claim.
Is the entire organizaton run by PR types?
Is there any scientific competence or ethical standard?
Do they care?
Humbug!
victor yodaiken
>Our grandchildren will hate us for not retiring carbon fueled
>power plants as fast as possible. The only feasible alternative
>is nuclear, as the French, Japanese and Koreans understand and as
>their extensive experience demonstrates. We owe it to the Earth,
Got a reference to back this up? The French have a working nuclear industry,
but the costs, economic and environmental are not obvious. For example,
how much money have the french sunk into their non-functioning breeder
reactors? Are there leaks at the Cape Breton reprocessing plant?
How can you judge the sucess of the French nuclear industry without
knowing these?
--
Cameron L. Spitzer
According to the California Public Utilities Commission,
a little over 1% of California's electricity is produced by wind turbines.
These systems remained profitable even after the tax subsidy went away.
Owners report downtimes had been overestimated by 10 times or more: wind
machines have proven more reliable than their proponents dared to hope.
The economic cost of wind-generated electricity in California is under
10 cents/kW-hour. The part of the cost of nuclear electricity in
California that we currently pay is about 11.5 cents. Not to mention the
costs our children and their children will continue to pay.
Do you think nuclear plants would be profitable without the Price-Anderson
insurance subsidy? Without the waste disposal avoidance subsidy?
Without the rate-payer cost overrun subsidy?
I question the motivations of those who continue to claim, despite the data
to the contrary, that nuclear electicity makes economic sense.
In article <1993Jan8.1...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
cons...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>Let's see-
>
> $492 billion (solar,wind money)
> ------------ << ------------------
> 20% of U.S. electricity 0.01% of U.S. electricity?
>
>Tino
Cameron Spitzer in San Jose, Ca.
Paul Dietz
> According to the California Public Utilities Commission,
> a little over 1% of California's electricity is produced by wind turbines.
> These systems remained profitable even after the tax subsidy went away.
Excuse me? They remain profitable to *operate* even without the ISO 4
contracts, (since the operating costs on the good ones are not very
high), but they haven't remained profitable to install, as witnessed
by the precipitous decline in new turbines.
Nuclear powerplants also have low operating cost (averaging about $.02/kWh
nationwide). This figure is higher than the nuclear industry would like,
and is starting to decline after a decade of faster-than-inflation
growth.
Paul F. Dietz
di...@cs.rochester.edu
Tino
>a little over 1% of California's electricity is produced by wind turbines.
>These systems remained profitable even after the tax subsidy went away.
>Owners report downtimes had been overestimated by 10 times or more: wind
>machines have proven more reliable than their proponents dared to hope.
>The economic cost of wind-generated electricity in California is under
>10 cents/kW-hour. The part of the cost of nuclear electricity in
>California that we currently pay is about 11.5 cents. Not to mention the
>costs our children and their children will continue to pay.
>
>Do you think nuclear plants would be profitable without the Price-Anderson
>insurance subsidy? Without the waste disposal avoidance subsidy?
>Without the rate-payer cost overrun subsidy?
>I question the motivations of those who continue to claim, despite the data
>to the contrary, that nuclear electicity makes economic sense.
Comparing an energy source that is weather-dependent for small additions to
the grid with a nuclear plant that will churn out 1000+ MW all day and all
night?
Why not convert the transportation industry from 18 wheelers to bicycles?
Tino
--
"Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tino
Yes, I do, and here's some facts:
Currently, 75% of the electricity generation in France is nuclear with 56
active reactors.
In 1991, France (or EdF, the company that runs the show) EXPORTED 53.4 TWh
of electricity, a 17% gain from 1990, for a turnover of 12 billion francs.
Because of this, EdF was the seventh largest French exporter in 1990, and
has probably moved up even higher. Their three largest consumers were the
UK, Italy, and Switzerland. [Tino's note: Italy is paying through the nose
for shutting down its plants] Germany has also begun to import large
amounts of electricity (5.5 TWh in 1991).
They have a program called the "ten yearly shut-down", where modifications
and heavy maintenance is performed in accordance to French regulations.
Between 1992 and 1998, 7 more plants are to be started up. Their goal is at
least one reactor a year, to increase their energy independence. Their
substitution of nuclear power for oil is now fully complete.
A law concerning research on long-life radioactive waste management was
promulgated on 30 December 1991.
(source: "Le programme electronucleaire francais au 1er janvier 1992" by
the Commissariat d'Energie Atomique)
After putting a lot of money into the nuclear program, it looks like they
are starting to bring in some cash. Their average reactor is only 10 years
old, so their profits will probably be increasing at a pretty good rate.
Having worked at a CEA research facility last year, I will gladly
entertain any of your other questions, Victor, to the best of my knowledge.
Rumors of "leaks at a reprocessing plant" are out of my domain, unless I
can track down a source for the info.
Mark Wilson
|Why not convert the transportation industry from 18 wheelers to bicycles?
Don't scoff. There are a number of people out there who think this would
be a good idea.
--
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
victor yodaiken
>In article <58...@dime.cs.umass.edu> yoda...@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <schumach....@convex.convex.com> schu...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>>Our grandchildren will hate us for not retiring carbon fueled
>>>power plants as fast as possible. The only feasible alternative
>>>is nuclear, as the French, Japanese and Koreans understand and as
>>>their extensive experience demonstrates. We owe it to the Earth,
>>
>>Got a reference to back this up? The French have a working nuclear industry,
>>but the costs, economic and environmental are not obvious. For example,
>>how much money have the french sunk into their non-functioning breeder
>>reactors? Are there leaks at the Cape Breton reprocessing plant?
>>How can you judge the sucess of the French nuclear industry without
>>knowing these?
>
>Yes, I do, and here's some facts:
>
>Currently, 75% of the electricity generation in France is nuclear with 56
>active reactors.
>
>In 1991, France (or EdF, the company that runs the show) EXPORTED 53.4 TWh
>of electricity, a 17% gain from 1990, for a turnover of 12 billion francs.
>Because of this, EdF was the seventh largest French exporter in 1990, and
>has probably moved up even higher. Their three largest consumers were the
...
You don't answer my questions. How much was invested? What's the return
on equity? What evidence leads one to believe that the French government
is getting a good return on the public's investment? I know that they
generate power, and I'm prepared to believe that they export it. What's
the *cost* though?
>UK, Italy, and Switzerland. [Tino's note: Italy is paying through the nose
Is there a high power transmission cable accross the English Channel?
>for shutting down its plants] Germany has also begun to import large
>amounts of electricity (5.5 TWh in 1991).
Replacing the East German suicidal power system, I guess.
>A law concerning research on long-life radioactive waste management was
>promulgated on 30 December 1991.
>
>(source: "Le programme electronucleaire francais au 1er janvier 1992" by
>the Commissariat d'Energie Atomique)
Sure to give an even handed treatment, no?
>Having worked at a CEA research facility last year, I will gladly
>entertain any of your other questions, Victor, to the best of my knowledge.
>Rumors of "leaks at a reprocessing plant" are out of my domain, unless I
>can track down a source for the info.
I'll look around.
--
Mike Lynch
If I recall, the French have an accounting treatment which I believe
should be practiced elsewhere. The cost of transmission and distribution
of electricity is considered a public good (e.g. availability) and hence
is paid for out of general income taxes. Electricity bills reflect only
the cost of generation. Hence, actual kwhs consumed, a private good, is
billed to users.
In Ontario, this would mean that those cities now considering the
independent power production alternative would still have to pay for
those costs associated with the maintenance of the bulk transmission
and distribution system.
--
Tino
>>>>Our grandchildren will hate us for not retiring carbon fueled
>>>>power plants as fast as possible. The only feasible alternative
>>>>is nuclear, as the French, Japanese and Koreans understand and as
>>>>their extensive experience demonstrates. We owe it to the Earth,
It should be noted that Korea is building 18 reactors in the next 15 years.
>>>Got a reference to back this up? The French have a working nuclear industry,
>>Yes, I do, and here's some facts:
>>
>>Currently, 75% of the electricity generation in France is nuclear with 56
>>active reactors.
>>
>>In 1991, France (or EdF, the company that runs the show) EXPORTED 53.4 TWh
>>of electricity, a 17% gain from 1990, for a turnover of 12 billion francs.
>>Because of this, EdF was the seventh largest French exporter in 1990, and
>>has probably moved up even higher. Their three largest consumers were the
>You don't answer my questions. How much was invested? What's the return
>on equity? What evidence leads one to believe that the French government
>is getting a good return on the public's investment? I know that they
>generate power, and I'm prepared to believe that they export it. What's
>the *cost* though?
I tried to track this down. Nuclear News (Nov. 1992) said that (paraphrased)
"after several years of losses, EdF turned a small profit in 1990 and a large
profit in 1991". You'll have to check out The Economist or another industry
mag to get the exact numbers. Just because I (the engineer) have to find all
of the numbers to support my argument doesn't mean that you don't have to.
>>UK, Italy, and Switzerland. [Tino's note: Italy is paying through the nose
>
>Is there a high power transmission cable accross the English Channel?
Apparently. The reactor sites along the English Channel, Flamanville, Paluel,
and Penly may be producing that electricity.
>>for shutting down its plants] Germany has also begun to import large
>>amounts of electricity (5.5 TWh in 1991).
>
>Replacing the East German suicidal power system, I guess.
Even so, the combined German states had an increase in their share of nuclear
generated electricity from 1990 to 1991. (Nuclear News, Nov. 92)
>>(source: "Le programme electronucleaire francais au 1er janvier 1992" by
>>the Commissariat d'Energie Atomique)
>
>Sure to give an even handed treatment, no?
It is mainly a collection of tables and status reports of the country's
reactors, as well as a timetable of important events in the European nuclear
scene.
Some other goodies:
Nuclear News (Nov. 92) reports that the nuclear share will be at 80% within a
year.
The reactors built in the early 1980's were all 900 MWe PWRs, the generation
of PWRs built from 1985-1993 are all 1300 MWe units, and the most recently
ordered units (Chooz B1, Chooz B2, Civaux-1, Civaux-2, Carnet-1, Carnet-2)
will be 1455 MWe (Yep, that's 4500+ MWt per unit!).
They are starting to use MOX (Mixed Oxide Fuel) in the PWRs, and in a few
years, a dozen reactors will be burning plutonium and uranium. This "closing
of the fuel cycle contributes to a reduction in its cost".
So it looks like by the end of the century, France (EdF) will have 65 reactors
up and running, many buring MOX fuel, and exporting at least 70 TWh per year
to neighboring countries.
Perhaps the nuclear industry could be a bright future to an aspiring
scientist like yourself, Victor.
James Hammerton
>In article <Greenpeace.7Jan1993.1645@naughty-peahen> Greenpeace via Jym Dyer <j...@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>[Greenpeace Press Release from Greenbase -- Redistribute Freely]
>>
>>GREENPEACE REPORT EXPOSES TRUE COSTS OF COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER:
>>HALF-A-TRILLION DOLLARS SUNK, $97 BILLION OUT OF PUBLIC COFFERS
>>
>>WASHINGTON, December 15, 1992 (GP) Greenpeace, in conjunction
>>with Komanoff Energy Associates (KEA), today released the first
>>definitive study of the accumulated costs of nuclear power in
>>the United States from 1950 through 1990.
>>
>>Two years in production,
> Sounds like a promo for a new movie.
>
>>the ground-breaking FISCAL FISSION:
>>THE ECONOMIC FAILURE OF NUCLEAR POWER writes the bottom line
Loadsa stuff deleted !
>
>Is the entire organizaton run by PR types?
>Is there any scientific competence or ethical standard?
>Do they care?
>
>Humbug!
Russ, you ask all these questions when they could easily be answered by getting
a hold of a copy of this book. Too many times I have seen people on this
newsgroup attack a publication without giving any signs of having read it.
In fact, many people seem to just attack anything that is printed by Greenpeace
or other environmental groups without giving any indication of having looked at
any of their literature. That these people can then proceed to denounce it as
bad science/propoganda/etc.. , without having looked at the evidence in those
books, shows that they are not prepared to listen to the arguments put forward
to see whether they might just be right!.
So I ask; Russ have you read ANY of Greenpeace's publications?(apart from the
press releases) Do you have any idea of what the scientific evidence is that
Greenpeace put forward to back their arguments up? I have seen two of their
publications so far, both of which backed every claim up with references to
scientific reports, other books, articles in the press, government documents,
company records etc... The first of these books detailed all the nuclear
accidents, and their effects, and the secrecy of the nuclear authorities in
many cases. The sources provided were rarely ones that I would doubt. The
second provides a comprehensive exposition of the science behind global warming
, followed by various policy recommendations and looking at what has been done
and what can be done, how much it will cost and the benefits. In doing so, each
section provides extensive references from a wide variety of sources. I wonder
if you are aware of just how much evidence Greenpeace has?
James
--
* James Hammerton * If Pascal is equivalent to the *
* Email: jam...@uk.ac.ed.aisb * mini-metro,then ML is the concept *
* * car where steering is done *
* * recursively using the gearstick. *
Tino
>You don't answer my questions. How much was invested? What's the return
>on equity? What evidence leads one to believe that the French government
>is getting a good return on the public's investment? I know that they
>generate power, and I'm prepared to believe that they export it. What's
>the *cost* though?
1991: 171.4 billion Fr in pre-tax sales
1.9 billion Fr profit
12.0 billion Fr used to pay off debts
The 1992 results are not available for a couple months. (Source: Nuclear News,
April 1992)
>>UK, Italy, and Switzerland. [Tino's note: Italy is paying through the nose
>
>Is there a high power transmission cable accross the English Channel?
Yep. A 2000 MWe cross-channel interconnection (NN,Apr 92). It's only 40 miles.
Breakdown of largest exports:
Total exports 53.4 TWh (=53.4 million MWh)
UK 16.8 TWh
Italy 14.0 TWh
Switzerland 13.1 TWh
Germany 5.5 TWh
Spain 0.2 TWh, due to weakness of interconnections in Spain
There were probably small exports to the Benelux countries to round out the
list.
Also, noted in the Jan 93 issue of NN is a statement that France's air
pollution (SO2, NOX, etc) has decreased fivefold since the beginning of their
nuclear program.
Tino
>you are aware of just how much evidence Greenpeace has?
You are aware of just how often they make severe errors in their press
releases?
Cameron L. Spitzer
>In article <C0qsD...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> j...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>>you are aware of just how much evidence Greenpeace has?
>
>You are aware of just how often they make severe errors in their press
>releases?
>
>Tino
Please cite your favorite "severe error" of fact in a Greenpeace
press release.
Statements of *opinion* which differ from yours don't count.
Cameron
James Hammerton
>>you are aware of just how much evidence Greenpeace has?
>
>You are aware of just how often they make severe errors in their press
>releases?
>
>Tino
You mentioned these 'severe errors' before. I seem to remember that you
thought that their claims that a speck of plutonium will kill you is one such
error. Yet I found evidence that suggested that in fact it WAS the case*. You
believed that the claims that renewable sources of energy could replace nuclear
power were another case, yet I have considerable evidence that they could
replace nuclear power AND fossil fuels(I'll be posting an essay about it in the
near future). You mentioned the claims about that radwaste burial could kill
millions, firstly I haven't seen it stated as strongly as that, secondly this
is an issue about which there is considerable debate and it hasn't been proven
to be safe yet. If radiation could leak from such radwaste dumps, then it is
conceivable that millions of cases of cancer could be caused, over the
thousands or millions of years that the waste will be radioactive, so I don't
see that as a 'severe error', it's more a point of heated debate.
I would say that their press releases main fault is that they don't provide any
references to substantiate their claims. My experience of Greenpeace is that
they usually do have considerable evidence, from scientific reports, journals,
articles in the press etc... The anti-environmentalists on this group rarely
if ever seem to consider this a possibility or check it out for
themselves, they just assume that Greenpeace are lying.
* Just to remind you, it was Sir Brian Flowers in the Royal Commission on
the Environment, 6th report, 1976, who found that a dose of only a few
milligrams of plutonium would, if inhaled, cause massive fibrosis of the lungs
and death within a few years.
Robert F. Drury
Unless the *opinions* in the release are stated as *facts*
Tino
>If radiation could leak from such radwaste dumps, then it is
conceivable that millions of cases of cancer could be caused, over the
Prove this by probabilistic risk assessment and post your results.
Otherwise, please refrain from discussing something you know absolutely
nothing about.
victor yodaiken
>I tried to track this down. Nuclear News (Nov. 1992) said that (paraphrased)
>"after several years of losses, EdF turned a small profit in 1990 and a large
>profit in 1991". You'll have to check out The Economist or another industry
>mag to get the exact numbers. Just because I (the engineer) have to find all
>of the numbers to support my argument doesn't mean that you don't have to.
My understanding is that the French energy system is not run on either a
for profit or an open accounting basis. Thus, when people cite the French
as an example proving the economic advantages of nuclear power, I'm
more than a little skeptical. EdF's losses on the breeder program alone
must be in the $10's of billions. Right now, none of the breeder reactors
is in operation: isn't that correct? I'm prepared to believe that the
French are now selling power from their nuclear plants, but as we have
heard many times on this net, operating income does not take into
account investment costs.
>>>for shutting down its plants] Germany has also begun to import large
>>>amounts of electricity (5.5 TWh in 1991).
>>
>>Replacing the East German suicidal power system, I guess.
>
>Even so, the combined German states had an increase in their share of nuclear
>generated electricity from 1990 to 1991. (Nuclear News, Nov. 92)
That, I believe. The East Germans seemed to have a competitive system for
designing dangerous and polluting power plants which spurred coal plant
designers and managers to rival the folks building their nukes.
>Perhaps the nuclear industry could be a bright future to an aspiring
>scientist like yourself, Victor.
Thanks for your concern.
--
victor yodaiken
>>You don't answer my questions. How much was invested? What's the return
>>on equity? What evidence leads one to believe that the French government
>>is getting a good return on the public's investment? I know that they
>>generate power, and I'm prepared to believe that they export it. What's
>>the *cost* though?
>
>1991: 171.4 billion Fr in pre-tax sales
> 1.9 billion Fr profit
> 12.0 billion Fr used to pay off debts
Operating costs. Not investment costs.
>>Is there a high power transmission cable accross the English Channel?
>
>Yep. A 2000 MWe cross-channel interconnection (NN,Apr 92). It's only 40 miles.
Thanks.
>Also, noted in the Jan 93 issue of NN is a statement that France's air
>pollution (SO2, NOX, etc) has decreased fivefold since the beginning of their
>nuclear program.
Might have something to do with the collapse of their steel industry too.
Done wonders in Pittsburg, Buffalo, and Cleveland.
--
Thomas Grant Edwards
>the grid with a nuclear plant that will churn out 1000+ MW all day and all
>night?
>Why not convert the transportation industry from 18 wheelers to bicycles?
>Tino
This country _would_ be a better place if people did most short
trips on bikes and not automobiles.
Let's have 15% wind, 15% solar, 60% nuclear, 9% fossil, and 1% leg power...
-Thomas
Richard Stead
> This country _would_ be a better place if people did most short
> trips on bikes and not automobiles.
>
> Let's have 15% wind, 15% solar, 60% nuclear, 9% fossil, and 1% leg power...
I'll second that - and I already commute to work on bike every day
(18 miles round trip). (Actually, while I like the other numbers, I'd
like to see a little less fossil and a little more leg).
--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
st...@seismo.css.gov
Tino
>>Comparing an energy source that is weather-dependent for small additions to
>>the grid with a nuclear plant that will churn out 1000+ MW all day and all
>>night?
>>Why not convert the transportation industry from 18 wheelers to bicycles?
>
>trips on bikes and not automobiles.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is a bit too big for everyone to give up their cars.
>Let's have 15% wind, 15% solar, 60% nuclear, 9% fossil, and 1% leg power...
If wind and solar can be economically feasible in such large amounts, this
looks like it could work. A fleet of next-generation reactors chugging away
24 hours a day for baseload, and solar and wind for regional/peaking loads.
Does anyone out there think that nuclear and fossil will be completely
replaced by solar and wind? If so, I'd like to know why.
Don Palmrose
>
> This country _would_ be a better place if people did most short
> trips on bikes and not automobiles.
>
>
>
Maybe that is good and well where you live. However, where I live, there
is about three feet of snow on the ground (more on the way), the roads seem
like they will be pernamently iced over, and when the wind blows, wind chills
of -20Ä„F and lower are not uncommon. So biking is definitely out and don't
tell me to cross-country ski because that is just asking to be hit by a car.
Plus, at times only a big 4x4 will get you where you want to go and in an
emergency then that big 4x4 gas guzzler people like you deride is literally a
life-saver.
I like my automobile and forcing me to use it less is not the answer.
Don Palmrose
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Thomas Richard Hubbard
The additude that these men have is the one that will save the Earth.
Conservation and Nuclear are the solution to the energy/ecological
problem. It should be the goal of every healthy American to try to
use the most efficient means of transportation (bicycle) whenever
possible. I will never understand why people will drive their cars to
the gym to work out.
Tom Hubbard
The above opinions are not neccessarily those of The University of
Virginia or the U.S. Navy.
Dean Alaska
>
>Does anyone out there think that nuclear and fossil will be completely
>replaced by solar and wind? If so, I'd like to know why.
Since you ask why and not how, you are asking for the reasoning behind
my preferences. Both solar and wind are cleaner and safer than fossil
or nuclear. Even if nuclear waste technologies are considered solved,
it's still more of an issue than the miniscule amount of toxics that
are used in PV panels. Even if nuclear plants don't leak radiation
in an amount of concern, the mining of the ore must be carefully
controlled to prevent the frequent problems of the past. That
uranium ore is no more dangerous than coal is irrelevent since
solar and wind use no ore. In fact
neither wind nor solar require the transportation of any type of
fuel. Even if one considers uranium and plutonium transport more
safe than oil tankers, its still more of a threat than wind and
solar, since there is not transport of fuels.
>
>Tino
>--
> "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
==============================================================================
Dean Myerson (aka dingo in boulder) de...@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jan13.1...@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jam...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>>If radiation could leak from such radwaste dumps, then it is
>conceivable that millions of cases of cancer could be caused, over the
>thousands or millions of years that the waste will be radioactive.
>
>Prove this by probabilistic risk assessment and post your results.
>
>Otherwise, please refrain from discussing something you know absolutely
>nothing about.
>
meant "If radioactivity could leak..?. Did he mention the potential
dose?
The water in Lake Erie _could_ drown the population of the U.S. ....if
they were immersed. _Could_ is such a wonderful fuzzy word.
Are these bits of wisdom from some University or other institution of
higher learning?
Richard Stead
> Conservation and Nuclear are the solution to the energy/ecological
> problem. It should be the goal of every healthy American to try to
> use the most efficient means of transportation (bicycle) whenever
> possible. I will never understand why people will drive their cars to
> the gym to work out.
There was a funny "Cathy" just a few days ago that addressed this.
First she waited for an elevator at the office to go down a few floors,
then drove a couple blocks to the mall, then drove around the parking lot
several minutes waiting for a spot near the door, then waited for an elevator
to go up a couple floors to the gym, and then was distraught to find
the gym had just closed and she couldn't use the stairmaster. I know
so many people who behave similarly.
Of course, there are also the people who get all bent out of shape about
the "bad people" at Exxon or nuke plants, yet will walk through a building
flicking on every light as they go (even in daytime), and leave them all on.
They set thermostats at 75 in winter and 62 in summer. They drive one
block to dump letters in the corner mailbox.
The upshot is that we have to accept a certain amount of hypocrisy amongst
the environmentally correct. Given that, we must plan for it in our
energy policy. We must also accept that there also will always be a
small percentage of people who are quite consciously and deliberately
environmentally incorrect - these, too, must be accounted for in an
energy policy. It doesn't matter if such people are "bad" or "hypocrits"
or whatever someone might want to label them - they are part of the
community and we cannot put absolute controls on their actions, so we
must suppply energy to everyone including these. We might plan methods
to indirectly control their power use (for example - one could require
new construction to have occupancy sensors in all rooms and hallways
that turn lights off when no one is there), but we cannot control it
directly.
Jym Dyer
discussion.
<_Jym_>
================================================================
=> From: j...@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
=> Subject: NEWS: Study Reveals Serious Problems in French Nuclear Industry
=> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1991 04:08:29 GMT
[Greenpeace Press Release from Environet]
MAJOR GREENPEACE STUDY REVEALS SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN FRENCH
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
WASHINGTON July 1, 1991 (GP) -- French nuclear power is in serious
decline, with major unresolved problems in safety, economics and
radioactive waste disposal, according to a major report released
today by Greenpeace International, in coordination with
Greenpeace USA. Entitled Crisis in the French Nuclear Industry,
the in-depth 136-page study was two years in the making. It was
authored by economist and political scientist Dr. Francois
Nectoux, and is being simultaneously released in Brussels and
Washington.
According to the report, the French nuclear electric system
toils under the world's largest private debt, some $38 billion
(232 billion French Francs). The 55 French reactors are showing
serious generic defects, premature aging, and higher-than-
expected costs. The system provides among the worst security of
supply to customers in all of Europe.
The report also concludes that:
-Government authorities now acknowledge that French reactors are
experiencing safety failures of much greater severity than had
previously been admitted.
-At least 24 of France's 34 900-megawatt reactors are involved
with costly steam generator replacements; as many as 20 1300-
megawatt models face the same problem.
-According to EdF's Inspector General for Nuclear Safety, Pierre
Tanguy, numerous French reactors have suffered from maintenance
errors with major safety implications. Tanguy has warned that
the whole "safety culture" within EdF is in jeopardy.
-The French industry has lost thousands of skilled personnel, and
EdF has lengthened the construction times of its latest reactors
in order to preserve its capital and its scientific
infrastructure.
-The failure of two French fast breeder reactors has led to the
abandonment of a technology that was once sold as the answer to
solving the long-term problems of nuclear fuel supply.
"The image of French nuclear excellence is based on public
relations hype rather than concrete reality," said Peter
Grinspoon, Greenpeace Nuclear Power Campaigner. "When closely
examined, French nuclear plants are dirty, dangerous, and
extraordinarily expensive. They have put the electric supply
system for all of France at great risk. Rather than a shining
example of nuclear efficiency, France is a tragic case study in
the failure of the 'Peaceful Atom'".
"Nuclear power in France is a mess," said Harvey Wasserman,
Senior Advisor to Greenpeace's Nuclear Campaign. "The dangerous
across-the-board flaws in French reactors show that standardizing
designs only makes the pitfalls of nuclear power that much worse.
Despite all the hype, the French experience has shown that
nuclear power is an abysmal failure wherever it is used. If
French standardization is meant to be the model for a new
generation of reactors, then we are in serious trouble,"
Wasserman added.
"The French nuclear industry suffers from the same
insurmountable burdens with radioactive waste that plague all
countries with nuclear power plants or weapons." said Jim Riccio,
Coordinator of Greenpeace's Nuclear Power Campaign. "Massive
French demonstrations against the siting of nuclear waste dumps
show that France is no closer to a solution for radioactive waste
disposal than is the United States."
Crisis in the French Nuclear Industry concludes that "[e]ven
without considering the environmental problems created by nuclear
power, there are enough arguments from the economic point of view
to put a stop to its unfettered development in France, and to
shift towards a policy centered on energy efficiency."
In-reply-to: yoda...@chelm.cs.umass.edu's message of 13 Jan 93 18:01:13 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: True Costs of French Commercial Nuclear Power (New Info)
References: <58...@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1993Jan12....@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>
<58...@dime.cs.umass.edu>
=o= Perhaps the attached may prove to be of value in this
discussion.
<_Jym_>
================================================================
=> From: j...@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
=> Subject: NEWS: Study Reveals Serious Problems in French Nuclear Industry
=> Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1991 04:08:29 GMT
[Greenpeace Press Release from Environet]
MAJOR GREENPEACE STUDY REVEALS SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN FRENCH
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
WASHINGTON July 1, 1991 (GP) -- French nuclear power is in serious
decline, with major unresolved problems in safety, economics and
radioactive waste disposal, according to a major report released
today by Greenpeace International, in coordination with
Greenpeace USA. Entitled Crisis in the French Nuclear Industry,
the in-depth 136-page study was two years in the making. It was
authored by economist and political scientist Dr. Francois
Nectoux, and is being simultaneously released in Brussels and
Washington.
According to the report, the French nuclear electric system
toils under the world's largest private debt, some $38 billion
(232 billion French Francs). The 55 French reactors are showing
serious generic defects, premature aging, and higher-than-
expected costs. The system provides among the worst security of
supply to customers in all of Europe.
The report also concludes that:
-Government authorities now acknowledge that French reactors are
experiencing safety failures of much greater severity than had
previously been admitted.
-At least 24 of France's 34 900-megawatt reactors are involved
with costly steam generator replacements; as many as 20 1300-
megawatt models face the same problem.
-According to EdF's Inspector General for Nuclear Safety, Pierre
Tanguy, numerous French reactors have suffered from maintenance
errors with major safety implications. Tanguy has warned that
the whole "safety culture" within EdF is in jeopardy.
-The French industry has lost thousands of skilled personnel, and
EdF has lengthened the construction times of its latest reactors
in order to preserve its capital and its scientific
infrastructure. -The failure of two French fast breeder
reactors has led to the abandonment of a technology that was once
sold as the answer to solving the long-term problems of nuclear
fuel supply.
"The image of French nuclear excellence is based on public
relations hype rather than concrete reality," said Peter
Grinspoon, Greenpeace Nuclear Power Campaigner. "When closely
examined, French nuclear plants are dirty, dangerous, and
extraordinarily expensive. They have put the electric supply
system for all of France at great risk. Rather than a shining
example of nuclear efficiency, France is a tragic case study in
the failure of the 'Peaceful Atom'".
"Nuclear power in France is a mess," said Harvey Wasserman,
Senior Advisor to Greenpeace's Nuclear Campaign. "The dangerous
across-the-board flaws in French reactors show that standardizing
designs only makes the pitfalls of nuclear power that much worse.
Despite all the hype, the French experience has shown that
nuclear power is an abysmal failure wherever it is used. If
French standardization is meant to be the model for a new
generation of reactors, then we are in serious trouble,"
Wasserman added.
"The French nuclear industry suffers from the same
insurmountable burdens with radioactive waste that plague all
countries with nuclear power plants or weapons." said Jim Riccio,
Coordinator of Greenpeace's Nuclear Power Campaign. "Massive
French demonstrations against the siting of nuclear waste dumps
show that France is no closer to a solution for radioactive waste
disposal than is the United States."
Crisis in the French Nuclear Industry concludes that "[e]ven
without considering the environmental problems created by nuclear
power, there are enough arguments from the economic point of view
to put a stop to its unfettered development in France, and to
shift towards a policy centered on energy efficiency."
####
E. Shane Jimerfield
>replaced by solar and wind? If so, I'd like to know why.
>
>Tino
>--
If there is no timeline then I'd say yes, because fossil fuels will
become to costly and nuclear will become obsolete.
--
Take 'er easy.... Shane
.watch out for the lightning (a large-scale high-tension natural electric
discharge in the atmosphere)......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..informal... a sudden usually improbable stroke of fortune.......
James Hammerton
>>If radiation could leak from such radwaste dumps, then it is
>conceivable that millions of cases of cancer could be caused, over the
>thousands or millions of years that the waste will be radioactive.
>
>Prove this by probabilistic risk assessment and post your results.
>
>Otherwise, please refrain from discussing something you know absolutely
>nothing about.
I'll admit that I know very little about radwaste disposal and whether
or not it is dangerous to bury it deep in the ground. However the point
you have just made about discussing something I know absolutely nothing
about has brought to mind a clarification of some of the points I've
been trying to make. Firstly, when you read Greenpeace's press releases,
there aren't (usually) any references to back up their claims. Therefore
someone who disaggrees with those claims(and especially if they have
evidence which disaggrees) will feel after a while that Greenpeace are
mistaken/lying or scaremongering, unless they have seen evidence to show
that Greenpeace are correct. Now on this newsgroup I have seen many
articles that attack the claims made in the press releases that Jym Dyer
puts on to the net. Some of them bring evidence in, others just seem to
assume that the claims are false. Yet none of them has, yet, shown any
sign of checking out Greenpeace's own evidence. In fact most of the
critics seem to have no idea of whether Greenpeace will have evidence or
not. I have said it before; Greenpeace often have considerable evidence
to back up their reasons for opposing nuclear power, for reducing CO2
emissions, banning certain chemicals etc... None of you have considered
that the evidence they have may convince them that this is the case,
that it might be well documented from a wide range of sources, and that
in short Greenpeace may actually have a strong case. Instead you all
seem to rush off and shout 'lies!' , 'propoganda!' or scaremongering.
All this is doing is enforcing your prejudices about Greenpeace.
The environmental problems that Greenpeace campaign on, are all well
documented, and in fact it is through the work of many scientists that
the problems that concern the environmental movement have been
discovered mostly by scientists. I find it amazing that many on this
group seem ignorant of this fact, and just assume that environmentalists
are just scaremongerers, when in fact they do have some very good points
to make.
Jeremy Whitlock
> Both solar and wind are cleaner and safer than fossil
>or nuclear.
To be able to claim this, you'd have to consider a 1000 MWe solar or wind
plant, providing baseload power at 65% - 75% capacity factor -- because that's
what a fossil or nuclear station can do. You'd have to consider everything
from the procurement and transportation of materials, to the daily maintenance.
Two studies that I know of have done precisely this ([H. Inhaber, _Energy Risk
Assessment_, Gordon and Breach, N.Y., 1982] and [J. Holdren et al., "Health
and Safety Impacts of Renewable, Geothermal and Fission Energy," in C.Travis
and E.Etnier, eds., _Health Risks of Energy Technologies_, Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado, 1983]), and both attribute higher risks to solar and
wind power, over nuclear and natural gas.
--
Jeremy Whitlock "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
James Hammerton
cons...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
# >This country _would_ be a better place if people did most short
# >trips on bikes and not automobiles.
#
# Unfortunately, the U.S. is a bit too big for everyone to give up their
cars.
#
# >Let's have 15% wind, 15% solar, 60% nuclear, 9% fossil, and 1% leg
power...
#
# If wind and solar can be economically feasible in such large amounts, this
# looks like it could work. A fleet of next-generation reactors chugging away
# 24 hours a day for baseload, and solar and wind for regional/peaking loads.
#
# Does anyone out there think that nuclear and fossil will be completely
# replaced by solar and wind? If so, I'd like to know why.
I don't think nuclear and fossil fuels can be completely replaced by wind and
solar, but I do think they can be replaced by wind, solar, biomass, tidal,
and wave, with biomass supplying the base load. I'll be posting three essays,
one on energy efficiency, one on renewable energy and one on a comparison
of a nuclear strategy with a renewable/efficiency strategy. The first of
these
is almost ready and I will post it within the next few days.
James Hammerton
writes:
# In article <1j1lk0...@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, tedw...@eng.umd.edu (Thomas
Grant Edwards) writes:
# >
# > This country _would_ be a better place if people did most short
# > trips on bikes and not automobiles.
# >
# > -Thomas
# >
# >
#
# Maybe that is good and well where you live. However, where I live, there
# is about three feet of snow on the ground (more on the way), the roads seem
# like they will be pernamently iced over, and when the wind blows, wind
chills
# of -20!F and lower are not uncommon. So biking is definitely out and don't
# tell me to cross-country ski because that is just asking to be hit by a car.
# Plus, at times only a big 4x4 will get you where you want to go and in an
# emergency then that big 4x4 gas guzzler people like you deride is literally
a
# life-saver.
#
# I like my automobile and forcing me to use it less is not the answer.
#
# Don Palmrose
I think these two points of view show that there is no one simple answer to
the
problems caused by cars. Where feasable it might be better to use bikes or
walk for
short journeys. If there's a good public transport system, then going by
bus/train
will be more energy efficient. However there are many cases where the car is
the
only viable option. Of course in Don's case, if more people skied their way
about,
there would be less cars, and less chance of an accident... However the
weather
conditions there would seem to justify using cars. I think the main short to
medium
priority is to make them less environmentally damaging by increasing fuel
efficiency
and trying to find more benign fuels for them. Long term, I feel there is a
need to
find a solution to the congestion problems they cause, and reducing the
necessity to
travel by having amenities, and in some cases workplaces, closer to where
people
live would be one way of doing this.
Dean Alaska
How interesting. Maybe you could summarize the source of these risks?
Richard A. Schumacher
>uranium ore is no more dangerous than coal is irrelevent since
>solar and wind use no ore. In fact
Of course they do, when they're under construction. What will you
build the generators and power distribution system out of?
E. Shane Jimerfield
>In article <1993Jan13.1...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>,
>cons...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
># >This country _would_ be a better place if people did most short
># >trips on bikes and not automobiles.
>#
># Unfortunately, the U.S. is a bit too big for everyone to give up their
>cars.
Some how the concept of SHORT TRIPS has been disregarded or possibly
there is a definition of short trip that I am not familiar with.
Allen Brown
> In article (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>> This country _would_ be a better place if people did most short
>> trips on bikes and not automobiles.
>> -Thomas
> Maybe that is good and well where you live. However, where I live,
> there is about three feet of snow on the ground (more on the way),
> the roads seem like they will be pernamently iced over, and when the
> wind blows, wind chills of -20ï¼› and lower are not uncommon.
Maybe you should re-read his posting. He said "most short trips". I
assume Idaho is not snowed in all year around :-). That leaves at
least some times in the year when it is possible for you to partake in
the healthy activity of biking.
> I like my automobile and forcing me to use it less is not the answer.
> Don Palmrose
Ah, the real answer. ``Don't want to!''
But the real answer may be a heavy tax on gasoline. You want to
drive? OK. But you will pay for it. That is probably the only way
to encourage almost everyone to save energy.
--
Allen C. Brown abr...@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
"The guy sure looks like plant food to me." Little Shop of Horror
James Hammerton
>
>> Both solar and wind are cleaner and safer than fossil
>>or nuclear.
>
>To be able to claim this, you'd have to consider a 1000 MWe solar or wind
>plant, providing baseload power at 65% - 75% capacity factor -- because that's
Why? In the case of solar energy, it seems to me that using the
considerable amount of space on our roofs, could provide a large, but
decentralised energy source, and would cut out such things as
transmission losses, costs of building a new grid if your supplying
energy in remote areas or the countries without a grid. I don't think
that providing energy from centralised points into a large grid is
necessarily the best or of doing so, in fact in the third world it would be
cheaper to provide energy using small scale decentralised sources such as
CHP with biomass, solar power heating/cooling than it would be to build
large power stations and the necessary pylons and stuff that go with
them.Also this would cut out costs associated with mining and
transporting fuels from other countries.
>what a fossil or nuclear station can do. You'd have to consider everything
>from the procurement and transportation of materials, to the daily maintenance.
>Two studies that I know of have done precisely this ([H. Inhaber, _Energy Risk
>Assessment_, Gordon and Breach, N.Y., 1982] and [J. Holdren et al., "Health
>and Safety Impacts of Renewable, Geothermal and Fission Energy," in C.Travis
>and E.Etnier, eds., _Health Risks of Energy Technologies_, Westview Press,
>Boulder, Colorado, 1983]), and both attribute higher risks to solar and
>wind power, over nuclear and natural gas.
I could believe this to be the case and will try to get a look at these
books at some point, however my point above may well nullify such
risks and also solar and wind technology have had considerable advances
over the last decade that may also change the situation somewhat. Prices
have fallen and according to Greenpeace[1], windpower can produce
electricity in the 8-9 cent/kWh range and one quarter of windpower is
competitive with new nuclear power in the US. Also in terms of CO2
output, with fuel extraction, construction and operation taken into
account Greenpeace give figures of 7.8 tons/GW hour output for
nuclear power, 7.4 tons/GW hour for wind, 5.4 for photovoltaics, 3.6 for
solar thermal and -159.9 for wood(sustainable harvest)[2]. They do make the
point that for wood this assumes new strains of fast growing trees that
re grow from roots systems, but the potential is there to create
renewable biomass systems that absorb most of the CO2 they release.
[1] "Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report" Chapter 11, page 236.
[2] As above, page 230. Source given for these figures is R.San Martin
"Environmental Emissions from Energy Technology Systems: The total fuel
cycle" , Forum on Renewable Energy and Climate Change, 14 June 1989
(US Department of Energy, Washington DC, 1989) page 5
Michael Moroney
>In article <1993Jan14.1...@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whit...@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>To be able to claim this, you'd have to consider a 1000 MWe solar or wind
>>plant, providing baseload power at 65% - 75% capacity factor -- because that's
>Why? In the case of solar energy, it seems to me that using the
>considerable amount of space on our roofs, could provide a large, but
>decentralised energy source, and would cut out such things as
>transmission losses, costs of building a new grid if your supplying
>energy in remote areas or the countries without a grid.
OK, the comparison could be for 1 million 1kWe plants, 1000 1MWe plants
or some mix thereof, AND storage systems (toxic chemicals like lead and
cadmium in batteries anyone?) to make the widely varying power available
as consistant and reliable as power from the grid. The total of all
these storage systems could be reduced if the they were interconnected
to the power grid as then there would be the ability of an area with
a surplus to export to an area with a deficit, later to be payed back
when the situation is reversed, but you need the grid for that.
>competitive with new nuclear power in the US. Also in terms of CO2
>output, with fuel extraction, construction and operation taken into
>account Greenpeace give figures of 7.8 tons/GW hour output for
>nuclear power, 7.4 tons/GW hour for wind, 5.4 for photovoltaics, 3.6 for
>solar thermal and -159.9 for wood(sustainable harvest)[2]. They do make the
^^^^^^
>point that for wood this assumes new strains of fast growing trees that
>re grow from roots systems, but the potential is there to create
>renewable biomass systems that absorb most of the CO2 they release.
This is wrong. Energy from biomass is CO2-neutral, assuming 100% efficiency
at converting the plant to energy, and no (fossil) CO2 released in
harvesting, processing, etc. Think about it - you grow the plants, which
absorb CO2 and stores carbon in the plant. Then you (eventually) burn
the plant or otherwise extract the energy from the carbon in the plants
which rereleases the carbon as CO2. Net change in CO2 after all this is
done: 0.
-Mike
John De Armond
>jam...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>>Why? In the case of solar energy, it seems to me that using the
>>considerable amount of space on our roofs, could provide a large, but
>>decentralised energy source, and would cut out such things as
>>transmission losses, costs of building a new grid if your supplying
>>energy in remote areas or the countries without a grid.
>OK, the comparison could be for 1 million 1kWe plants, 1000 1MWe plants
>or some mix thereof, AND storage systems (toxic chemicals like lead and
>cadmium in batteries anyone?) to make the widely varying power available
>as consistant and reliable as power from the grid.
Absolutely, Mike. This thread comes around every year and since the
sun isn't any brighter this year than last, and since clouds still
happen, the same issues remain unsolved. I'm not going to repost my
analysis this time - anyone interested can find an archive somewhere.
Here's what I have to have for solar to do anything for me. I have to
have about 5000 kwh/month of electricity delivered at any rate I desire.
It has to run my two air conditioners, light the lights in my house and
office, run my 5 hp air compressor, light the 5KW or so of lights in
my little photo studio, run the computer and the copy machine and the
coffee maker and the test equipment in my lab and so on. All at
the same time if I so desire. After all, that is what I have now
with electricity generated from the grid. No, I'm not willing to
sacrifice in any way and I'm willing to fight in the political arena
to make sure I don't have to. Oh, and this has all got to work after
15 or 20 days in a row of clouds like we've had here since Christmas.
And it has to do it without my ever giving it a second thought.
Now the independent streak in me makes me want to generate my own power
but I seem to be thwarted in my efforts to simultaneously solve the
(nonexistent) nuclear waste problem and achieve independence by generating
my power from radioactive decay heat. Let me have a few million curies
of radwaste, concentrated, vitrified and encapsulated in stainless steel
capsules, and you can pull my meter for good.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility?
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers?
Marietta, Ga | Send ur snail-mail address to
j...@dixie.com | per...@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Gary Coffman
>
>>Let's have 15% wind, 15% solar, 60% nuclear, 9% fossil, and 1% leg power...
>
>If wind and solar can be economically feasible in such large amounts, this
>looks like it could work. A fleet of next-generation reactors chugging away
>24 hours a day for baseload, and solar and wind for regional/peaking loads.
Hold on now, wind can't be used for peaking. The availablility of wind
power is prefaced on when the wind blows, not when the demand grows.
Wind needs to be treated as an unreliable baseload system that must
be paired with peaking capacity, such as hydro, that can smooth out
the power flow from the wind plants. Large distributed wind grids
would be more reliable, predictable, than single sites, but wind is
still not controllable on demand.
Gary
--
Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!ga...@gatech.edu
Gary Coffman
>
>Some how the concept of SHORT TRIPS has been disregarded or possibly
>there is a definition of short trip that I am not familiar with.
Short trip: any trip that can be completed on one tank of gas or less.
Gary Coffman
>
>But the real answer may be a heavy tax on gasoline. You want to
>drive? OK. But you will pay for it. That is probably the only way
>to encourage almost everyone to save energy.
But fortunately for almost everyone, they already drive and aren't
politically stupid enough to let such a heavy tax be passed. I'm
taking bets that Clinton's $.50 a gallon tax goes nowhere. Remember
that 57% of voters voted *against* Clinton/Gore in the recent election
and Congress knows it.
Thomas Richard Hubbard
>In article <1993Jan16.0...@hpcvca.cv.hp.com> abr...@hpcvcec.cv.hp.com (Allen Brown) writes:
>>
>>But the real answer may be a heavy tax on gasoline. You want to
>>drive? OK. But you will pay for it. That is probably the only way
>>to encourage almost everyone to save energy.
>
>But fortunately for almost everyone, they already drive and aren't
>politically stupid enough to let such a heavy tax be passed. I'm
>taking bets that Clinton's $.50 a gallon tax goes nowhere. Remember
>that 57% of voters voted *against* Clinton/Gore in the recent election
>and Congress knows it.
I enthusiastically voted against Clinton/Gore, but I approve of heavy
taxes on gasoline. It will probably have a bad immediate affect on
most areas of the economy, but in the long run (and that's what we
should be planning for) it will result in a *lot* less gas consumed.
Why do you think that Europe and Japan have high efficiency cars,
excellent mass transportation and many cyclists? Mainly because
they have to pay about $4/gallon for gas.
Tom Hubbard
The above opinions do not necessarily reflect those of The
University of Virginia or The Department of the Navy.
Jym Dyer
> You are aware of just how often they make severe errors in
> their press releases?
=-= I've seen many claims of such in these forums, but seldom
has anyone backed them up with substance. And of the few that
have been backed up, the errors have been pretty irrelevant.
=-= In other words, not that severe at all.
<_Jym_>
James Hammerton
writes:
# jam...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
#
# >In article <1993Jan14.1...@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca>
whit...@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
# >>To be able to claim this, you'd have to consider a 1000 MWe solar or wind
# >>plant, providing baseload power at 65% - 75% capacity factor -- because
that's
#
# >Why? In the case of solar energy, it seems to me that using the
# >considerable amount of space on our roofs, could provide a large, but
# >decentralised energy source, and would cut out such things as
# >transmission losses, costs of building a new grid if your supplying
# >energy in remote areas or the countries without a grid.
#
# OK, the comparison could be for 1 million 1kWe plants, 1000 1MWe plants
# or some mix thereof, AND storage systems (toxic chemicals like lead and
# cadmium in batteries anyone?) to make the widely varying power available
# as consistant and reliable as power from the grid. The total of all
# these storage systems could be reduced if the they were interconnected
# to the power grid as then there would be the ability of an area with
# a surplus to export to an area with a deficit, later to be payed back
# when the situation is reversed, but you need the grid for that.
#
# >competitive with new nuclear power in the US. Also in terms of CO2
# >output, with fuel extraction, construction and operation taken into
# >account Greenpeace give figures of 7.8 tons/GW hour output for
# >nuclear power, 7.4 tons/GW hour for wind, 5.4 for photovoltaics, 3.6 for
# >solar thermal and -159.9 for wood(sustainable harvest)[2]. They do make
the
# ^^^^^^
# >point that for wood this assumes new strains of fast growing trees that
# >re grow from roots systems, but the potential is there to create
# >renewable biomass systems that absorb most of the CO2 they release.
#
# This is wrong. Energy from biomass is CO2-neutral, assuming 100%
efficiency
# at converting the plant to energy, and no (fossil) CO2 released in
# harvesting, processing, etc. Think about it - you grow the plants, which
# absorb CO2 and stores carbon in the plant. Then you (eventually) burn
# the plant or otherwise extract the energy from the carbon in the plants
# which rereleases the carbon as CO2. Net change in CO2 after all this is
# done: 0.
#
# -Mike
It does depend on whether the whole plant is burned or not. As I said, this
assumed fast growing trees that can re grow from their roots, in other words
some of the carbon is fixed in the roots, thus not all of the plant is used
for fuel, so theoretically there could be a small amount of carbon absorbed
net. However actual performance hadn't been determined. I have to say I am
somewhat sceptical about it absorbing CO2, but I do realise that a lot
depends
on the harvesting methods and I think it is possible to do so in theory. You
are right that the CO2 absorbed by growing a ton of wood will all be released
when it is burnt, but if you burn less wood than you grow, then there'll be
a net absorbtion. I would actually need to see the source I gave for a
detailed
explanation of why they arrived at the figure quoted though.
James Hammerton
writes:
# jam...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
#
whit...@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
# >>To be able to claim this, you'd have to consider a 1000 MWe solar or wind
# >>plant, providing baseload power at 65% - 75% capacity factor -- because
that's
#
# >Why? In the case of solar energy, it seems to me that using the
# >considerable amount of space on our roofs, could provide a large, but
# >decentralised energy source, and would cut out such things as
# >transmission losses, costs of building a new grid if your supplying
# >energy in remote areas or the countries without a grid.
#
# OK, the comparison could be for 1 million 1kWe plants, 1000 1MWe plants
# or some mix thereof, AND storage systems (toxic chemicals like lead and
# cadmium in batteries anyone?) to make the widely varying power available
# as consistant and reliable as power from the grid. The total of all
# these storage systems could be reduced if the they were interconnected
# to the power grid as then there would be the ability of an area with
# a surplus to export to an area with a deficit, later to be payed back
# when the situation is reversed, but you need the grid for that.
Ahh I see, the storage systems would make a difference. However it is entirely
possible to have an energy supply the mixes intermittent and non intermittent
sources such that no, or very little, storage is actually required. Indeed one
way
of getting round the storage problem for individual homes that use PVs, was to
allow
the electricity meters to run both ways. During the day the homes use their
PVs for
electricity and any surplus gets input to the grid, pushing the meter dials
backwards whilst at night they take electricity from the grid, where other
sources
of energy come into play. This probably wouldn't eliminate storage needs
though.
As to the point about grids. I wasn't actually arguing against using them
where they
already exist. Indeed they can be very useful for smoothing out supply from
intermittent sources. In the industrialised countries therefore the grids
should be
used to their full advantage. That doesn't however prevent you from having
more
decentralised sources supplying power directly to the users, who could even
contribute their surpluses, if suitable arrangements were made. Also I believe
that
renewable sources can provide our energy needs and that biomass would be a
good
continuous supply. Solar power would provide a substantial fraction of the
energy
during the day, whilst wind would be a good but intermittent source. I believe
these
could be balanced in such a way as to make storage requirements fairly small,
according to David Toke in his book 'Green Energy' around 50% of the UK's
could reliably be taken from a single intermittent source, 2/3 if you mix
intermittent sources, so I don't think storage requirements will be necessary
in
most cases.
James
James Hammerton
writes:
# In article <1993Jan15.0...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu># >
# >Some how the concept of SHORT TRIPS has been disregarded or possibly
# >there is a definition of short trip that I am not familiar with.
#
# Short trip: any trip that can be completed on one tank of gas or less.
#
# Gary
Thus buying a car with a more efficient engine, increases the length
of a short trip according to this definition.
Don Palmrose
>
> Maybe you should re-read his posting. He said "most short trips". I
> assume Idaho is not snowed in all year around :-). That leaves at
> least some times in the year when it is possible for you to partake in
> the healthy activity of biking.
>
I'm sorry, but I have seen the way a large minority of people drive up here
and I will not take my chances riding a bike on the roads up here. Plus the
fact there is no support for building the necessary network of bike trails
to make it safe since that would mean raising taxes.
> > I like my automobile and forcing me to use it less is not the answer.
> > Don Palmrose
>
> Ah, the real answer. ``Don't want to!''
>
And I have that right to make that decision and I will not have someone else
who does not live where I live say that they know what is good for me.
It is clear to me that they really do not know what is good for me or the
other people of my area.
> But the real answer may be a heavy tax on gasoline. You want to
> drive? OK. But you will pay for it. That is probably the only way
> to encourage almost everyone to save energy.
The real answer is not a heavy tax on gasoline. Out here in the wide open
West a heavy tax like you would want would be economic suicide. A heavy
gasoline tax may not affect you in a small town like Corvallis, OR with a
well-thought out bike system due to all of the college students at OSU. But
there is no economic alternative to the automobile out here in rural Idaho.
Let the true price of gasoline be reflected at the gas pump. If you want
us all to use less gasoline, then it is probably better to mandate efficiency
in automobile engines and put the decision in the hands of the people (by
deciding on the type of vehicle they want) rather placing an economic burden
on everyone.
> --
> Allen C. Brown abr...@cv.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!abrown or "Hey you!"
> "The guy sure looks like plant food to me." Little Shop of Horror
>
Don Palmrose
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Gary Coffman
>
>I enthusiastically voted against Clinton/Gore, but I approve of heavy
>taxes on gasoline. It will probably have a bad immediate affect on
>most areas of the economy, but in the long run (and that's what we
>should be planning for) it will result in a *lot* less gas consumed.
>Why do you think that Europe and Japan have high efficiency cars,
>excellent mass transportation and many cyclists? Mainly because
>they have to pay about $4/gallon for gas.
And why are Japan and Europe both in deep recessions while the US
is recovering from a period of slow growth? Could part of the
reason be $4/gallon gas? I don't see any special value in "saving"
gas. What are we saving if for? How much interest do we earn at the
gas bank?
Improving efficiency of gas usage makes sense if the real cost savings
are greater than the total real economic effects of achieving those
savings. Artificially inflating the price of gas only serves to
enrich the government while distorting the economy away from realistic
pricing. Let the price of gas settle at the level of economic availability.
This *will* gradually increase as the easy supplies are drawn down,
and alternatives will appear on the market as they reach their natural
competitive break points.
Attacking pollution produced by carbon burning *of any sort* may be a
worthwhile objective, but great strides in pollution abatement have
already been taken in a cost effective manner, and further strides
are in the works. Rather than cutting our own economic throats with
abusive energy taxes, we need to continue to set air quality standards
and let the market supply solutions that meet those standards in the
most cost effective manner. Whether those solutions are advanced
catalysts, or even abandonment of the internal combustion engine,
let the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry decide rather than the
IRS.
Dean Alaska
>power is prefaced on when the wind blows, not when the demand grows.
>Wind needs to be treated as an unreliable baseload system that must
>be paired with peaking capacity, such as hydro, that can smooth out
>the power flow from the wind plants. Large distributed wind grids
>would be more reliable, predictable, than single sites, but wind is
>still not controllable on demand.
I am curious as to whether CAES could be used to smooth out these
problems.
>
>Gary
>
>--
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!ga...@gatech.edu
E. Shane Jimerfield
>writes:
># In article <1993Jan15.0...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>47...@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
># >
># >Some how the concept of SHORT TRIPS has been disregarded or possibly
># >there is a definition of short trip that I am not familiar with.
>#
># Short trip: any trip that can be completed on one tank of gas or less.
>#
than one hour.
-
Richard Stead
> The environmental problems that Greenpeace campaign on, are all well
> documented, and in fact it is through the work of many scientists that
> the problems that concern the environmental movement have been
> discovered mostly by scientists. I find it amazing that many on this
> group seem ignorant of this fact, and just assume that environmentalists
> are just scaremongerers, when in fact they do have some very good points
> to make.
I have no problems with the scientists who do the work and report it in
peer-reviewed journals. I do have something against the radical fringe
of the environmental movement (like Greenpeace) that is quick to take
a few snippets of scientific results that might support their political
stands, then turn around and crucify the very scientists who reported
the data when they urge caution in its interpretation and extrapolation.
All we scientists ever hear from these fringe groups is how we're
raping the earth and how technology is such a crime and how awful we
all are. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept at face value statements that
such groups make. And I don't have the time to dredge through the river
of propaganda they generate to refute it point by point. Whenever they
touch on subjects I have direct knowledge of, I find distortions.
Regardless of whether such distortions are deliberate or not, they must
color my view of their ability to report in areas I do not have direct
knowledge of.
--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
st...@seismo.css.gov
Richard Stead
> drive? OK. But you will pay for it. That is probably the only way
> to encourage almost everyone to save energy.
Total agreement here. But I think this will be impossible unless the people
paying the tax get something out of it - it shouldn't disappear into the
black hole of entitlements. The way I see of doing this is extending the
current system of fas tax, where the tax is directed solely toward the
interstate highway system. What do auto users want? More and better
highways, they want them cleaned up and nice, they want nice places to
drive to. So let's use the money to build, improve and maintain all our
highways, let's use it for the National Park and Forest systems, let's
use it to clean up eyesores and dangerous messes, let's use it for research
for better, safer, more efficient, and alternative energy cars. Let's
also use it to build nice public bike paths, and make safe public biking
in cities for all those who will decide to bike in response to the tax.
This line of reasoning could be extended to cover all the of the Dept's
of Interior, Energy and Transportation (and state level funding as well).
Restrict the use of the tax to these and then people could drive down the
road to their favorite park - and benefit from their gas taxes in every
aspect of the trip. That is reasonable and I think most Americans would
see that - Americans have always been willing to pay taxes when they
can see the results directly. It could even be sweetened by reducing
income taxes by some portion of the tax moneys freed by the new method
of funding the appropriate departments. Now who could argue with that?
Even index the income tax reduction so that it benefits those in the
income ranges who bear the largest burden of the gas tax.
Let's do it ASAP. It's hard to find any big negatives here, and it's
right to charge the people who use something the cost of using it.
A couple bucks a gallon would be plenty to take care of the entire
budgets of the mentioned departments. Gas has been almost a dollar
more than it is now per gallon, and you have to ask yourself whether
you would rather pay your money to some wealthy Arab sheiks or some
corporate greedhead, or use it to get better roads and nicer public places.
If we tax gas, gas use will go down, leading to a glut and lower prices,
so gas price at the pump will not go up by the full amount of the tax.
(supply and demand is fun, ain't it?)
Richard Stead
> I'm sorry, but I have seen the way a large minority of people drive up here
> and I will not take my chances riding a bike on the roads up here. Plus the
> fact there is no support for building the necessary network of bike trails
> to make it safe since that would mean raising taxes.
First, it is a fallacy to believe that bike trails make biking safe.
Statistics show that use of bikeways is actually more hazardous than
using roads nearby. You will find that most bicycle organizations
oppose bikeways - in particular where they are used as an excuse to
kick cyclists off the roads. Second, I spent 6 weeks in rural Idaho about
10 years ago. The drivers seemed particularly patient, courteous and safe -
as I have observed in most rural areas in the midwest and north west.
I think it has to do with the philosophy of people who live in these areas.
I have lived most of my life in and around Philadelphia, LA and
Washington, DC. The drivers in LA are sort of ok, but the drivers in Philly
and particularly DC are abominable. I have lived in DC 3 years and have
had the unpleasant experience of having someone take a deliberate
run at me 6 times while I have been biking on the roads. I have had
4 spills and one totalled bike from other dumbshit drivers. I have not had
a serious injury, nor has anyone actually made contact yet (I prefer to
dive for the shoulder than get whacked, the totalled bike came from
someone who took a large truck very fast the wrong way on a one-way
street. I hopped the curb to avoid him, but wedged my wheel in a crack
in the sidewalk and bent the frame going over the handlebars).
Anyway, I bike to work every day in spite of the nonsense and would
recommend you try it with the mellow drivers you have out there. You
might surprise yourself. Be sure to wear a helmet and something
with high visibility.
> there is no economic alternative to the automobile out here in rural Idaho.
> Let the true price of gasoline be reflected at the gas pump. If you want
Indeed! Let the full cost of all highway construction, improvement and
maintainance be in there. Let the full cost for the environmental damage
done in the name of the automobile be in there. Let it all be there,
and I will agree that it's fair. Otherwise, you are getting an unfair
subsidy from those of us who do not drive so much. The only way to
include these costs, however, is through a tax. So I support a gas tax,
but I only support one where the money is restricted to funding
federal, state and local functions reasonably connected to auto use.
> us all to use less gasoline, then it is probably better to mandate efficiency
> in automobile engines and put the decision in the hands of the people (by
> deciding on the type of vehicle they want) rather placing an economic burden
> on everyone.
If people have a choice of cars, they tend not to choose efficient cars.
Also, I do not wish to make it illegal to drive an inefficient vehicle -
this is taking away a person's choice. However, I would like to correct
an imbalance present in that choice - the true cost of burning gasoline.
Then let people choose to drive whatever they want.
Richard Stead
> Improving efficiency of gas usage makes sense if the real cost savings
> are greater than the total real economic effects of achieving those
> savings. Artificially inflating the price of gas only serves to
> enrich the government while distorting the economy away from realistic
> pricing. Let the price of gas settle at the level of economic availability.
> This *will* gradually increase as the easy supplies are drawn down,
> and alternatives will appear on the market as they reach their natural
> competitive break points.
I disagree. First, I think gas taxes are necessary to address an existing
distortion in the market - that gas does not include the costs of all
highway construction and maintaince and all the environmental damage
caused directly and indirectly by cars. Gas should include these costs.
Second, gas price increase will only increase recoverable reserves
(which are defined as oil that can be recovered economically at the
current price of oil). This little cat-and-mouse game of proce and reserves
can be played a very long way before we reach any break points. This
is because our government spends a lot of money to facilitate the use
of gas in cars, but it comes from income taxes, not gas taxes. Just
move where the money comes from. I don't favor a mass increase in
government income - income taxes should be reduced somewhat to offset
gas tax income. Not a gas tax rebate (that really defeats the purpose),
just reduce the tax rate (but index the reduction to give proportionally
larger reduction to income levels paying the largest gas tax).
> Attacking pollution produced by carbon burning *of any sort* may be a
> worthwhile objective, but great strides in pollution abatement have
> already been taken in a cost effective manner, and further strides
> are in the works. Rather than cutting our own economic throats with
> abusive energy taxes, we need to continue to set air quality standards
> and let the market supply solutions that meet those standards in the
> most cost effective manner. Whether those solutions are advanced
> catalysts, or even abandonment of the internal combustion engine,
> let the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry decide rather than the
> IRS.
How? Setting quality standards has no effect on the market. Only when
those standards are converted to action does the market get affected.
For example, SCAQMD has air quality goals for LA, but this does not
prompt car manufacturers to improve their cars. Rather, when SCAQMD
translates their goals into specific emissions requirements for
manufacturers who want to sell their cars in LA, then the market is
affected. However, most manufacturers simply make a "California"
model of their car - they sell a more polluting version everywhere else.
Also, not all carbon fuels are the same, nor are the methods of burning
them. Methane is a particularly clean-burning fuel, especially when
burned in a combustiona turbine on a very large scale. It produces
less CO2 per unit of energy produced as well. Two cars may burn
the same quantity of gasoline, producing equal amount of CO2, but
one may produce much more NOx, emit more as CO than CO2, or emit unburned
hydrocarbons. Also, where do you draw the line between fossil carbon
fuels and "renewable" carbon fuels (assuming "renewable" simply means
you are returning CO2 to the atmosphere that was recently removed).
alcohol from corn should count as renewable. what about dead leaves?
what about peat? what about lignite? Where do you draw the line for
the tax?
And other carbon fuels may be burned (by a power company, for example)
that is not relying on government subsidies for its infrastructure (as
autos rely on the government for the roads). I think the tax should
be appropriate. I think coal should be partially taxed, for example.
And some things are unacceptable and should be regulated - coal plants
should emit virtually unmeasurable SO2.
James W. Swonger
>Let's do it ASAP. It's hard to find any big negatives here, and it's
>right to charge the people who use something the cost of using it.
>A couple bucks a gallon would be plenty to take care of the entire
>budgets of the mentioned departments. Gas has been almost a dollar
>more than it is now per gallon, and you have to ask yourself whether
>you would rather pay your money to some wealthy Arab sheiks or some
>corporate greedhead, or use it to get better roads and nicer public places.
>If we tax gas, gas use will go down, leading to a glut and lower prices,
>so gas price at the pump will not go up by the full amount of the tax.
>(supply and demand is fun, ain't it?)
>
No. Let's not do it. See, you set up a false choice here, "sheiks -or-
'greedheads' -or- government" when in fact we already take it sans
Vaseline from all three. Now you propose to triple government's cut, leaving
the others intact - that's "and, and, and".
I observe that dedicated-use taxes do not have the effect intended by
their proponents. The MO I see is, "OK, that's funded now. So the money
that -was- funding that sector, now we can spend it elsewhere. Maybe
a study on the effects of dedicated-use taxes. I've got a campaign
contributor who could use a study grant...". It happens with "education"
lotteries, it happens with local sales taxes "for infrastructure improvements",
"for more prison space", and if by some chance the deficit, the not-to-be-
discussed debt and the personal tax burden can be taken as an indicator,
it most certainly happens at the federal level.
Government in its modern incarnation serves as a machine to extract value
from productive activity and divert it to those who are capable of finding
the tit. This value of which I speak includes money, choice and power. Do
you have a surplus of any of these? If so, feel free to donate it to the
public trust. However, kindly refrain from donating mine.
--
##########################################################################
#Irresponsible rantings of the author alone. Any resemblance to persons #
#living or dead then yer bummin. May cause drowsiness. Alcohol may inten-#
#sify this effect. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Billy!#
Don Palmrose
>
> Total agreement here. But I think this will be impossible unless the people
> paying the tax get something out of it - it shouldn't disappear into the
> black hole of entitlements. The way I see of doing this is extending the
> current system of fas tax, where the tax is directed solely toward the
> interstate highway system. What do auto users want? More and better
> highways, they want them cleaned up and nice, they want nice places to
> drive to. So let's use the money to build, improve and maintain all our
> highways, let's use it for the National Park and Forest systems, let's
> use it to clean up eyesores and dangerous messes, let's use it for research
[text deleted to save on space]
>
> Let's do it ASAP. It's hard to find any big negatives here, and it's
> right to charge the people who use something the cost of using it.
[more text deleted to save on space]
> If we tax gas, gas use will go down, leading to a glut and lower prices,
> so gas price at the pump will not go up by the full amount of the tax.
> (supply and demand is fun, ain't it?)
>
>
> --
> Richard Stead
> Center for Seismic Studies
> Arlington, VA
> st...@seismo.css.gov
>
>
While Richard brings up may good points about drastically increasing the
tax on gasoline, there is one huge negative here. It is the people who live
and work west of the Mississippi. The vast majority of people who live and
work in the rural west are extremely dependent on their vehicles for their
livelyhood. The farmers, ranchers, truckers, the people who live in
those areas that have very hard winters, and more. The automobile is not a
luxury, it is a necessity. Many of the people I have mentioned have a hard
time making ends meet as it is, and raising the gas tax to the level many in
this group seem to want will probably force them into bankrupcy.
So while Richard may think that the gas prices might eventually come back down,
how many people in the rural west will be ruined during the high price phase
if these plans are enacted? The last bout of artifically high gas prices
(oil embargo) ruined sooo many people out here that it took years for some
states to recover. They cannot afford another such hammering especially if it
is by our (the nation's) own hands.
Plus I doubt if Congress would allocate the funds raised in the way Richard
would want to see them spend. Bottom line here: I do not trust Congress
with such a large pot of money to pork out on.
So you urbanites just remember, you are not the only ones in this country.
Alot of this nation's wealth is located in the rural areas. Placing them in
economic ruin by artifically raising gas prices will come back and haunt you
in more ways than at the pump. Remember to take in the whole picture and
not just the snap shot of your locality.
Don Palmrose
> 10 years ago. The drivers seemed particularly patient, courteous and safe -
> as I have observed in most rural areas in the midwest and north west.
> I think it has to do with the philosophy of people who live in these areas.
>
When I moved to Idaho Falls, I watched how people drove up here. For the most
part they are like you said. HOWEVER, there are quite of few people (a
minority but still there) who are like the people you encountered in the big
city. I have seen several people biking nearly forced into the ditch. So I
will not bike to work up here when the weather permits it.
[text deleted to save space]
> Anyway, I bike to work every day in spite of the nonsense and would
> recommend you try it with the mellow drivers you have out there. You
> might surprise yourself. Be sure to wear a helmet and something
> with high visibility.
>
I did when I was a graduate student at Texas A&M University and always wore
a helmut (I did alot of triathlons back then also). It was safe (for the most
part) because I could ride on side streets.
> Indeed! Let the full cost of all highway construction, improvement and
> maintainance be in there. Let the full cost for the environmental damage
> done in the name of the automobile be in there. Let it all be there,
> and I will agree that it's fair. Otherwise, you are getting an unfair
> subsidy from those of us who do not drive so much. The only way to
> include these costs, however, is through a tax. So I support a gas tax,
> but I only support one where the money is restricted to funding
> federal, state and local functions reasonably connected to auto use.
>
That is why the federal dollars of the tax on gas goes to the interstate
system, right? Isn't that why state and local governments slap on their own
gas tax? If it not true then you better do some lobbying because that is
the reason I have heard alot of politicians give for raising the gas tax when
they do raise it.
> If people have a choice of cars, they tend not to choose efficient cars.
> Also, I do not wish to make it illegal to drive an inefficient vehicle -
> this is taking away a person's choice. However, I would like to correct
> an imbalance present in that choice - the true cost of burning gasoline.
> Then let people choose to drive whatever they want.
>
By mandating "fleet fuel economy standards" you do have the choice of the
type of car you want to drive. You can go for the super high gpm vehicle if
you so desire or buy the super luxury car with the lower gpm value. The big
point to remember on a gas tax, it does not affect everyone the same. The
poor who generally cannot affort a high efficient auto get hit harder than the
rich guy who can affort it without a loss in lifestyle.
> --
> Richard Stead
> Center for Seismic Studies
> Arlington, VA
> st...@seismo.css.gov
>
I am glad that the area of Arlington, VA where you live does give you the
opportunity to safely bike to work.
John De Armond
>Indeed! Let the full cost of all highway construction, improvement and
>maintainance be in there. Let the full cost for the environmental damage
>done in the name of the automobile be in there. Let it all be there,
>and I will agree that it's fair. Otherwise, you are getting an unfair
>subsidy from those of us who do not drive so much. The only way to
>include these costs, however, is through a tax. So I support a gas tax,
>but I only support one where the money is restricted to funding
>federal, state and local functions reasonably connected to auto use.
a) Rich, that's the way it already works. Ever heard of the federal
highway trust fund? Around here even the local part of road construction
comes from voter approved sales tax surcharges designated for
road construction. The difference between local and federal money is
that we can exert control over how it is spent through voting down
sales tax proposals that don't make sense and by kicking out of office
those local politicos who abuse things. Haven't yet figured how to
vote out a federal highway administration hack.
b) Speaking of fair, you wouldn't be one of those who bellows like a
cut bull everytime it is proposed to tax bicycles so that they pay
their share of road taxes, would you? If you are not, you are a minority
of one, since every other cyclist I've ever posed the question to thinks
he should get a free ride at motorists' expense.
>If people have a choice of cars, they tend not to choose efficient cars.
>Also, I do not wish to make it illegal to drive an inefficient vehicle -
>this is taking away a person's choice. However, I would like to correct
>an imbalance present in that choice - the true cost of burning gasoline.
>Then let people choose to drive whatever they want.
Here is the crux of the problem. You people in government think you know
more than us mere citizens and therefore have some kind of right to deny
us choice. Bastards. The thing that makes me so mad is I cannot come
up with a way short of an armed revolution to root you people out.
Maybe it must come to that. Frankly, fuck you and your government
energy policies. Richard, maybe if you'd drop the .gov off your
address and substitute a .com, you'd understand.
John De Armond
>I disagree. First, I think gas taxes are necessary to address an existing
>distortion in the market - that gas does not include the costs of all
>highway construction and maintaince and all the environmental damage
>caused directly and indirectly by cars. Gas should include these costs.
Why is that? You seem to think energy is some kind of luxury to be metered
out by the government. After all, the government has to oppose anything
that might imply pleasure. Energy is what drives this country and
is what enables the quality of life we all expect.
>Second, gas price increase will only increase recoverable reserves
>(which are defined as oil that can be recovered economically at the
>current price of oil).
Except that the gas price increase would NOT mean more money to
producers. it would instead simply fund more bureaucracy. The only
money producers would get would be that they manage to suck out
of the government tit.
>This little cat-and-mouse game of proce and reserves
>can be played a very long way before we reach any break points. This
>is because our government spends a lot of money to facilitate the use
>of gas in cars, but it comes from income taxes, not gas taxes. Just
>move where the money comes from. I don't favor a mass increase in
>government income - income taxes should be reduced somewhat to offset
>gas tax income. Not a gas tax rebate (that really defeats the purpose),
>just reduce the tax rate (but index the reduction to give proportionally
>larger reduction to income levels paying the largest gas tax).
Yeah, I'll hold my breath on that one.
>How? Setting quality standards has no effect on the market. Only when
>those standards are converted to action does the market get affected.
>For example, SCAQMD has air quality goals for LA, but this does not
>prompt car manufacturers to improve their cars. Rather, when SCAQMD
>translates their goals into specific emissions requirements for
>manufacturers who want to sell their cars in LA, then the market is
>affected. However, most manufacturers simply make a "California"
>model of their car - they sell a more polluting version everywhere else.
Do you REALLY equate any tailpipe emission to pollution?
>hydrocarbons. Also, where do you draw the line between fossil carbon
>fuels and "renewable" carbon fuels (assuming "renewable" simply means
>you are returning CO2 to the atmosphere that was recently removed).
>alcohol from corn should count as renewable. what about dead leaves?
>what about peat? what about lignite? Where do you draw the line for
>the tax?
The answer is you don't because you don't allow the government to
get involved. Gee, just think how much CO2 "pollution" could be
saved if we killed a few thousand bureaucrats.
John De Armond
So let's use the money to build, improve and maintain all our
>highways, let's use it for the National Park and Forest systems, let's
>use it to clean up eyesores and dangerous messes, let's use it for research
>for better, safer, more efficient, and alternative energy cars. Let's
>also use it to build nice public bike paths, and make safe public biking
>in cities for all those who will decide to bike in response to the tax.
And of course, you'd have the bicyclists get a free ride on the backs
of motorists, eh?
>This line of reasoning could be extended to cover all the of the Dept's
>of Interior, Energy and Transportation (and state level funding as well).
>Restrict the use of the tax to these and then people could drive down the
>road to their favorite park - and benefit from their gas taxes in every
>aspect of the trip.
Say, Richard. Why don't "we" just turn all our wealth over to the omniscent
and all-encompassing government so that it can, with its unlimited wisdom,
manage our lives for us? After all, a mere individual is an intellectual
midget compared to the collective wisdom of "we", certainly incapable
of managing his life or his wealth. Right?
Oh yeah, that very model just finished failing on the other side of the
ocean, didn't it?
Jeremy Whitlock
>I, too, never take Greenpeace statements at face value after their main
>spokesperson in Ontario stated that Ontario Hydro should shut down its
>CANDU reactors because they were just like the reactors at Chernobyl.
>Anyone who knows anything at all about nuclear power can tell the difference
>between a heavy-water and a graphite moderated reactor, and Greenpeace could
>not.
He was probably referring to the positive void coefficient, which is a common
feature of Candu and RBMK reactors. It was (and still is) fashionable among
anti-nuclear spokespersons in Canada to allude to this similarity, despite
the fact that it implies nothing about safety. The difference, of course,
lies in the magnitude of the coefficient, the dependence on reactor
configuration, the ability to control the reactor and the ability to shut
the reactor down. All of this is naturally irrelevant to groups like
Greenpeace.
--
Jeremy Whitlock "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
Dept. Engineering Physics
McMaster University
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Gary Coffman
>In article <1993Jan17.1...@ke4zv.uucp>, ga...@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
>writes:
># In article <1993Jan15.0...@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>47...@air.atmo.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
># >
># >Some how the concept of SHORT TRIPS has been disregarded or possibly
># >there is a definition of short trip that I am not familiar with.
>#
># Short trip: any trip that can be completed on one tank of gas or less.
>#
># Gary
>
>Thus buying a car with a more efficient engine, increases the length
>of a short trip according to this definition.
Absolutely James. I don't think anyone on this list has a problem
with increasing efficiency. Many would argue that some efficiency
increases are too expensive, or that the tradeoff between efficiency
and performance may not be acceptable in certain cases, but we all
love efficiency. I'd be delighted to have a one ton capacity 4x4
that does 0-50 MPH in under 6 seconds and gets 38 MPG.
William Carroll
>st...@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>>Indeed! Let the full cost of all highway construction, improvement and
>>maintainance be in there. Let the full cost for the environmental damage
>>done in the name of the automobile be in there. Let it all be there,
>>and I will agree that it's fair. Otherwise, you are getting an unfair
>>subsidy from those of us who do not drive so much. The only way to
>>include these costs, however, is through a tax. So I support a gas tax,
>>but I only support one where the money is restricted to funding
>>federal, state and local functions reasonably connected to auto use.
>
>a) Rich, that's the way it already works. Ever heard of the federal
>highway trust fund?
You mean the fund the politicos like to wrap in the budegt because its
positive balance makes the deficit look smaller? Yeah, I've heard of it.
Ever wonder why it continues to grow when most transportation engineers
agree that the countries transportation infrastructure is in bad shape?
>Around here even the local part of road construction
>comes from voter approved sales tax surcharges designated for
>road construction.
So why should sales taxes, rather than gas taxes, pay for road construction?
Yeah, I know the old "everything you use travels by road" argument. But
the guy transporting it on the road pays the gas tax too. So the tax I
pay (indirectly) to support road construction is more proportional to the
fuel used to transport it than the cost of manufacture and retailing.
And who pays the environmental cost of autos?
>b) Speaking of fair, you wouldn't be one of those who bellows like a
>cut bull everytime it is proposed to tax bicycles so that they pay
>their share of road taxes, would you? If you are not, you are a minority
>of one, since every other cyclist I've ever posed the question to thinks
>he should get a free ride at motorists' expense.
So what is the cyclist's fair share? What percentage of road maintainence
is caused by cycling? What percentage of pollution is caused by cycling?
What percentage of new road construction is mandated by bicycle traffic
levels? etc.
If you can propose a tax on bicycle usage that _is_ fair, can be collected
sensibly, and isn't dominated by the cost of collection, I would support it.
--
William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcar...@encore.com
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization." -Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC
Gavin Ramsay
>
>Is there a high power transmission cable accross the English Channel?
>
>yoda...@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Yes there is a high power transmission cable across the english channel
You might also be interested that Scotland (which produces about 60% of its
energy needs by nuclear power) also exports electricity down south to
England and Wales.
Gavin Ramsay
Mark Wilson
|In article <C140A...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> rlb...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell) writes:
|>I, too, never take Greenpeace statements at face value after their main
|>spokesperson in Ontario stated that Ontario Hydro should shut down its
|>CANDU reactors because they were just like the reactors at Chernobyl.
|>Anyone who knows anything at all about nuclear power can tell the difference
|>between a heavy-water and a graphite moderated reactor, and Greenpeace could
|>not.
|He was probably referring to the positive void coefficient, which is a common
|feature of Candu and RBMK reactors. It was (and still is) fashionable among
|anti-nuclear spokespersons in Canada to allude to this similarity, despite
|the fact that it implies nothing about safety. The difference, of course,
|lies in the magnitude of the coefficient, the dependence on reactor
|configuration, the ability to control the reactor and the ability to shut
|the reactor down. All of this is naturally irrelevant to groups like
|Greenpeace.
I've been having a debate with a gentleman over on alt.politics.greens.
He posted what he said was a summary of a study done by Feminist Indigenous
Peoples Enviro Awarness (I think that was the name). In the summary he
mentioned that Canada was planning to build a dam for hydroelectric
power. This dam was going to create a lake the size of France.
Another poster asked him to clarify this point as it didn't make any sense.
He responded by saying that this detail was not in the report he was
summarizing, he had added it in order to emballish the point the report
was trying to make.
I asked him if he didn't think that adding his own material into a
summarization of someone else's report wasn't a bit dishonest.
He replied to me that it was dishonest, and that since someone else had
already demonstrated that his data was wrong, he apologized.
In other words, he was sorry that his insertion was wrong, not sorry that
he had inserted the data.
This kind of casual attitude towards the truth deeply disturbs me.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark....@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Richard Stead
> In article <51...@seismo.CSS.GOV> st...@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>
> >Let's do it ASAP. It's hard to find any big negatives here, and it's
> >If we tax gas, gas use will go down, leading to a glut and lower prices,
> >so gas price at the pump will not go up by the full amount of the tax.
> >(supply and demand is fun, ain't it?)
> >
> No. Let's not do it. See, you set up a false choice here, "sheiks -or-
> 'greedheads' -or- government" when in fact we already take it sans
> Vaseline from all three. Now you propose to triple government's cut, leaving
> the others intact - that's "and, and, and".
Nope, supply and demand dictate that the government's cut will go up a lot,
but the sheiks and greedheads will get less. Basic economics. And I prefer
such a balance. I would much rather have my money at that pump go to the
government that to anyone else, even if to do so requires I pay more total.
> I observe that dedicated-use taxes do not have the effect intended by
> their proponents. The MO I see is, "OK, that's funded now. So the money
> that -was- funding that sector, now we can spend it elsewhere. Maybe
Exactly why I propose an income tax reduction, indexed so that income ranges
paying the most in gas tax have the largest reduction.
Laurence James Edwards
|> st...@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
|>
|> >If people have a choice of cars, they tend not to choose efficient cars.
|> >Also, I do not wish to make it illegal to drive an inefficient vehicle -
|> >this is taking away a person's choice. However, I would like to correct
|> >an imbalance present in that choice - the true cost of burning gasoline.
|> >Then let people choose to drive whatever they want.
|>
|> Here is the crux of the problem. You people in government think you know
|> more than us mere citizens and therefore have some kind of right to deny
|> us choice. Bastards. The thing that makes me so mad is I cannot come
|> up with a way short of an armed revolution to root you people out.
|> Maybe it must come to that. Frankly, fuck you and your government
|> energy policies. Richard, maybe if you'd drop the .gov off your
|> address and substitute a .com, you'd understand.
It seems to me, one of the purposes of government/laws is to deny people choice
... I think the problem here is that Richard's choices are not John's. There is
a way to "root you people out," run for federal office and win. Then you can
make people like Richard implement your own choices ... that is, if you get
enough other people in office who agree with you.
Larry Edwards
Gary Coffman
Well it's true that the Federal Highway Trust Fund has been raided in
recent years to pay for mass transit, and it's true that the funds are
currently impounded to make the deficit look better. The government
is doing the same thing with the aviation trust funds. However, Federal
Highway Trust Fund monies pay for 90% of the cost of new US highway
construction, 100% of new Interstate construction, and 50% of new
State highway construction. The remainder of roads, county and city
roads, are paid for through a formula that includes 10% Federal funds,
and a matching grant program between the State and the local government.
In total, Federal gas taxes pay for 68% of all road construction. State
gas taxes, in conjunction with local property taxes, pay for the remainder.
Since roads benefit even non-drivers through the improved transport of
goods and services that they provide, the subsidy actually runs the other
way with those who don't pay gasoline taxes receiving benefits from those
who do.
>> Attacking pollution produced by carbon burning *of any sort* may be a
>> worthwhile objective, but great strides in pollution abatement have
>> already been taken in a cost effective manner, and further strides
>> are in the works. Rather than cutting our own economic throats with
>> abusive energy taxes, we need to continue to set air quality standards
>> and let the market supply solutions that meet those standards in the
>> most cost effective manner. Whether those solutions are advanced
>> catalysts, or even abandonment of the internal combustion engine,
>> let the laws of thermodynamics and chemistry decide rather than the
>> IRS.
>
>How? Setting quality standards has no effect on the market. Only when
>those standards are converted to action does the market get affected.
>For example, SCAQMD has air quality goals for LA, but this does not
>prompt car manufacturers to improve their cars. Rather, when SCAQMD
>translates their goals into specific emissions requirements for
>manufacturers who want to sell their cars in LA, then the market is
>affected. However, most manufacturers simply make a "California"
>model of their car - they sell a more polluting version everywhere else.
Yes, tailpipe emissions standards are what I'm talking about. Cal
sets a tighter standard because the geography of the LA basin and
the high concentration of urban usage in overpopulated California
require more stringent regulations. In Wyoming similarly tight
emissions standards are not required. This is a good example of
tailoring local controls to meet local situations. Using the meat
axe approach of gas taxes penalizes the driver in rural areas, where
cars are a necessity, in order to solve a problem of urban areas.
>Also, not all carbon fuels are the same, nor are the methods of burning
>them. Methane is a particularly clean-burning fuel, especially when
>burned in a combustiona turbine on a very large scale. It produces
>less CO2 per unit of energy produced as well. Two cars may burn
>the same quantity of gasoline, producing equal amount of CO2, but
>one may produce much more NOx, emit more as CO than CO2, or emit unburned
>hydrocarbons. Also, where do you draw the line between fossil carbon
>fuels and "renewable" carbon fuels (assuming "renewable" simply means
>you are returning CO2 to the atmosphere that was recently removed).
>alcohol from corn should count as renewable. what about dead leaves?
>what about peat? what about lignite? Where do you draw the line for
>the tax?
Yes, again an argument for tailpipe standards, not fuel taxes. You make
my case for me very well.
Jeremy Whitlock
someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown accident
in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds than
the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
To make the point, the Greenpeace spokesman shakes a pair of dice for 15
seconds while stating the above information (visual crutch telegraphed from
miles away), and then tosses the dice across the table.
Favourite line: "We're talking -- literally -- about people lying dead in
the street..." (Greenpeace spokesman to reporter)
Biggest understatement (paraphrased): "These numbers don't agree with ours."
(Ontario Hydro spokesman)
Second biggest understatement (paraphrased): "Making this kind of statement
borders on the irresponsible." (Ontario Hydro spokesman)
C Revie
>Here is the crux of the problem. You people in government think you know
>more than us mere citizens and therefore have some kind of right to deny
>us choice. Bastards. The thing that makes me so mad is I cannot come
>up with a way short of an armed revolution to root you people out.
>Maybe it must come to that. Frankly, fuck you and your government
>energy policies. Richard, maybe if you'd drop the .gov off your
>address and substitute a .com, you'd understand.
>John
That's what get's me about Libertarians in the USA. They think the world
owes them a living, and that anybody who gets in their way ought to be
shot.
Two things for you to think about
1) Americans pay less tax per head than any of the other G7 Nations
2) Your infrastructure is knackered
Chris
Gary Coffman
>In article <1993Jan14.1...@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whit...@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan13....@vexcel.com> de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>> Both solar and wind are cleaner and safer than fossil
>>>or nuclear.
>>
>>To be able to claim this, you'd have to consider a 1000 MWe solar or wind
>>plant, providing baseload power at 65% - 75% capacity factor -- because that's
>
>Why? In the case of solar energy, it seems to me that using the
>considerable amount of space on our roofs, could provide a large, but
>decentralised energy source, and would cut out such things as
>transmission losses, costs of building a new grid if your supplying
>energy in remote areas or the countries without a grid. I don't think
>that providing energy from centralised points into a large grid is
>necessarily the best or of doing so, in fact in the third world it would be
>cheaper to provide energy using small scale decentralised sources such as
>CHP with biomass, solar power heating/cooling than it would be to build
>large power stations and the necessary pylons and stuff that go with
>them.Also this would cut out costs associated with mining and
>transporting fuels from other countries.
Three issues have to be addressed in distributed systems. First is
comparative capital installation costs. Second is percent reliable
capacity. And third is operations cost, including maintenance.
Alternative energy systems cost per installed peak kilowatt is getting
down to within a factor of two of the cost of central plants in some
cases, but that usually ignores site aquisition costs. However, peak
outputs are only reached irregularly in most alternative systems. To
operate a system at 75% capacity factor, you need either storage, a grid,
another alternative source of power, or all three together. Why is capacity
factor important? Because it impacts your capital costs when figuring the
amount of installed capacity you need for reliable service.
Then there are the issues of maintenance, supervision, and control to
address. In a central plant, one control system, one supervisory staff,
and one maintenance staff are required in one fixed location. In a
distributed system, maintenance requires a skilled craft staff in trucks
scattered all over the operations area. Grid maintenance also requires
staff in trucks, but the degree of training, and the types of repair parts
required for grid maintenance is different than for generation systems.
Also, a grid is still required for reliable service unless alternative
generation is supplied at each site in addition to the primary system.
For example, the solar systems suffer from loss of light incidents, wind
systems suffer from low winds, so storage or alternative generation on
site is necessary if the grid is missing. Those backup systems also
require maintenance and testing periodically. Control requires advanced
communications and automation systems. And system supervision and
dispatching becomes a nightmare if reliable service is to be maintained.
So distributed alternative generation requires a lot more distributed
assets and expertise than a central system if the same degree of reliability
is to be maintained. If you are satisfied with availability of electricity
on an ocasional and unscheduled basis, then it's possible that distributed
systems may be cheaper. But if you want the same grade of service as that
provided by central systems, costs, both up front and continuing, are going
to be greater for the distributed systems. If you let untrained personnel
tinker with the generation systems, safety is going to be compromised as
well. One of the chief causes of accidents in the US is falls. Clamoring
around on rooftops is bound to increase that figure if tens of millions
of rooftops contain generation equipment.
>>what a fossil or nuclear station can do. You'd have to consider everything
>>from the procurement and transportation of materials, to the daily maintenance.
>
>>Two studies that I know of have done precisely this ([H. Inhaber, _Energy Risk
>>Assessment_, Gordon and Breach, N.Y., 1982] and [J. Holdren et al., "Health
>>and Safety Impacts of Renewable, Geothermal and Fission Energy," in C.Travis
>>and E.Etnier, eds., _Health Risks of Energy Technologies_, Westview Press,
>>Boulder, Colorado, 1983]), and both attribute higher risks to solar and
>>wind power, over nuclear and natural gas.
>
>I could believe this to be the case and will try to get a look at these
>books at some point, however my point above may well nullify such
>risks and also solar and wind technology have had considerable advances
>over the last decade that may also change the situation somewhat. Prices
>have fallen and according to Greenpeace[1], windpower can produce
>electricity in the 8-9 cent/kWh range and one quarter of windpower is
>competitive with new nuclear power in the US. Also in terms of CO2
>output, with fuel extraction, construction and operation taken into
>account Greenpeace give figures of 7.8 tons/GW hour output for
>nuclear power, 7.4 tons/GW hour for wind, 5.4 for photovoltaics, 3.6 for
>solar thermal and -159.9 for wood(sustainable harvest)[2]. They do make the
>point that for wood this assumes new strains of fast growing trees that
>re grow from roots systems, but the potential is there to create
>renewable biomass systems that absorb most of the CO2 they release.
If you take the *avoided shade* that not going to solar generation
provides, and plant it in grass or quick growing shrubs, then you
reduce CO2 as well. If you *don't* cut the trees for biomass generation,
you reduce CO2 production even more markedly. These *avoided* costs are
rarely granted to nuclear, hydro, and geothermal plants. These central
systems have less bio-impact than burning trees, blocking sunlight, or
capturing significant amounts of a continental wind system. On a small
scale, alternative systems have small impacts while producing small
amounts of energy. On a large scale they will have large scale impacts
to produce large amounts of energy.
Alternative energy proponents are usually the same people who condemn
auto usage because of the aggregate pollution impacts they produce.
One auto makes little difference and has low impact, but millions can
have a large aggregate impact. The same is true of distributed alternative
energy systems. One system has little impact, but hundreds of millions
are a different story. Like with the argument between mass transit and
individual auto usage, the central system has less aggregate impact.
It's funny therefore that people who support mass transit oppose centrally
generated power. It boils down to individual control in both cases. An
auto gives an individual greater control over travel and a distributed
generation system gives greater individual control over power supplies.
But both cost more for that priviledge. Since, historically, central power
generation has worked well, and mass transit hasn't, a conservative view
is that we should stick with proven methods.
Dean Alaska
>In article <1993Jan16....@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jam...@aisb.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>>
>>Why? In the case of solar energy, it seems to me that using the
>>considerable amount of space on our roofs, could provide a large, but
>>decentralised energy source, and would cut out such things as
>>transmission losses, costs of building a new grid if your supplying
>>energy in remote areas or the countries without a grid. I don't think
>>that providing energy from centralised points into a large grid is
>>necessarily the best or of doing so, in fact in the third world it would be
>>cheaper to provide energy using small scale decentralised sources such as
>>CHP with biomass, solar power heating/cooling than it would be to build
>>large power stations and the necessary pylons and stuff that go with
>>them.Also this would cut out costs associated with mining and
>>transporting fuels from other countries.
>
>Three issues have to be addressed in distributed systems. First is
>comparative capital installation costs. Second is percent reliable
>capacity. And third is operations cost, including maintenance.
>
distributed renewable than centralized and I imagine that early
renewable will be centralized. There was a blurb in the paper a
few days ago that the nearby National Energy Renewables Lab (NREL,
formerlay SERI), had hooked up a two way PV system to Public
Services grid to try the system. It pulls from the grid when it
cannot cover its needs and feeds into it when it has excess.
The problems Gary mentions are very real but I do not know that they
are qualitatively different than problems which have already been
solved involving the grid. Time will tell, I guess.
>Alternative energy proponents are usually the same people who condemn
>auto usage because of the aggregate pollution impacts they produce.
>One auto makes little difference and has low impact, but millions can
>have a large aggregate impact. The same is true of distributed alternative
>energy systems. One system has little impact, but hundreds of millions
>are a different story. Like with the argument between mass transit and
>individual auto usage, the central system has less aggregate impact.
>It's funny therefore that people who support mass transit oppose centrally
>generated power. It boils down to individual control in both cases. An
>auto gives an individual greater control over travel and a distributed
>generation system gives greater individual control over power supplies.
>But both cost more for that priviledge. Since, historically, central power
>generation has worked well, and mass transit hasn't, a conservative view
>is that we should stick with proven methods.
Capital costs for distributed energy may be more but other costs may
ameliorate since fewer centralized plants will be needed. Some will
still be needed for high intensity industrial uses, but they will be
more appropriately responsible for this cost. It will
also remove a distortion in the marketplace in which decisions about
consumption are divorced from those about production. There will be
greater _market_ pressure to use efficienct technologies if you then
get to pay less for your energy collection systems.
>
>Gary
>--
>Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
>Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
>534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary
>Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | |
Tino
>On the news last night: Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (from
>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown accident
>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds than
>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
Jym, do you have a copy of this report somewhere? I'd like to take a look
at it. You may be missing 6 or 7 zeros after that 17.
>Favourite line: "We're talking -- literally -- about people lying dead in
>the street..." (Greenpeace spokesman to reporter)
>
>Biggest understatement (paraphrased): "These numbers don't agree with ours."
>(Ontario Hydro spokesman)
>
>Second biggest understatement (paraphrased): "Making this kind of statement
>borders on the irresponsible." (Ontario Hydro spokesman)
Could Greenpeace be sued over something like this?
Tino
--
"Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Stead
> That is why the federal dollars of the tax on gas goes to the interstate
> system, right? Isn't that why state and local governments slap on their own
> gas tax? If it not true then you better do some lobbying because that is
> the reason I have heard alot of politicians give for raising the gas tax when
> they do raise it.
Only the cost of construction of a small number of roads is included in gas
taxes. Most road construction, road maintainance, etc. is not included,
and nothing is done about the environmental damage cars and trucks cause.
I want all those things to be included in the price of gas.
> > If people have a choice of cars, they tend not to choose efficient cars.
> > Also, I do not wish to make it illegal to drive an inefficient vehicle -
> > this is taking away a person's choice. However, I would like to correct
> > an imbalance present in that choice - the true cost of burning gasoline.
> > Then let people choose to drive whatever they want.
>
> By mandating "fleet fuel economy standards" you do have the choice of the
> type of car you want to drive. You can go for the super high gpm vehicle if
> you so desire or buy the super luxury car with the lower gpm value. The big
> point to remember on a gas tax, it does not affect everyone the same. The
> poor who generally cannot affort a high efficient auto get hit harder than the
> rich guy who can affort it without a loss in lifestyle.
First, high efficiency cars are not the more expensive ones. The Geo Metro
is the most efficient out there and is also one of the least expensive cars
you can buy. Subaru Justy is another example of a cheap, very high mileage
car. However, big gas suckers like Lincolns, Cadillacs, Rolls Royce,
Jaguar, Ferrari, etc., all are impossibly expensive. I think if you
compared the mileage of the 10 most expensive car models (and even require
them to satisfy some minimum sales criteria, like 10000 sold in the US
last year), to the 10 cheapest models, you would find a remarkable contrast -
and the cheaper cars would be far more efficient.
Second, I want to address the problem of income classes disproportioantely
hit by the gas tax. I want a reduction in personal income tax rates
that is indexed such that income classes that contribute the most gas tax
get the largest reduction in tax rate. That is emminantly fair - that
way if everyone in your income range drove the same kind of car, the
total taxes you pay wouldn't really change. Then if you drive a less
efficient car, or drive excessively more miles than others in your income
range, that is your choice, and you should pay for your decision.
Third, if you're really worried about it, buy a motorcycle. You can take
them on any roads, they often have better range than cars, they are way
more fuel efficient and far less expensive than any car.
The fact that the problems you pose are so easy to solve only strengthens
my resolve in this matter. I really think that a big gas tax could be
instituted that would work great and not unfairly affect anyone.
Richard Stead
> st...@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> a) Rich, that's the way it already works. Ever heard of the federal
> highway trust fund? Around here even the local part of road construction
> comes from voter approved sales tax surcharges designated for
> road construction. The difference between local and federal money is
> that we can exert control over how it is spent through voting down
> sales tax proposals that don't make sense and by kicking out of office
> those local politicos who abuse things. Haven't yet figured how to
> vote out a federal highway administration hack.
First, you haven't read all my arguments in favor of gas tax. I explicitly
said the state and local funds also must come out of the tax, and these
would be controlled by state and local governmental bodies. In fact,
a couple months back, I also explicitly said that the state and local cut should
go directly to the state and local bodies, not through Congress. This
would prevent that nonsense that currently goes on with the 55 mph limit.
> b) Speaking of fair, you wouldn't be one of those who bellows like a
> cut bull everytime it is proposed to tax bicycles so that they pay
> their share of road taxes, would you? If you are not, you are a minority
> of one, since every other cyclist I've ever posed the question to thinks
> he should get a free ride at motorists' expense.
I would be happy to pay my _fair_ share. It just I'm sure when it is computed
that it will be discovered to be less than the administrative cost to collect.
(In fact, due to my low car mileage, I have a BIG rebate due ...)
Anyway, I pay my taxes - more than you I would guess. And I am paying
to build roads and bridges and clean up after cars and maintain roads and
whatnot that I don't use with my car. Gas taxes only cover a small percentage
of all road construction in this country, and none of the maintainance,
and none of the environmental cleaning up after cars. Thus my larger
payment to Uncle Sam is subsidizing your larger number of miles. I had
only 4300 miles on my car last year - how many did you have? We can make
that all fair by using gas taxes for every government expenditure
associated with the automibile. Then you and I would pay our fair shares
of the road construction, maintainance, etc. Bikes cause unmeasurable
wear to road surfaces - they would be exempt from road repair and resurfacing.
Bikes don't need wide lanes - they would only have to pay for the percent of
the lane they really need. Bikes don't require heavy construction to
support their weight - they would only pay a tiny fraction of any cost of
bridges, and only a small percent of all foundation work. Also, what about
all the old bikeways that were removed and replaced by roads for autos -
should not bikers be compensated for that loss? (Before the auto, many
routes that are now roads for cars were bikeways). And while we're being
fair, let's really enforce the laws that require bikes be treated same
as cars. I obey every traffic law when I ride my bike on the roads - what
give auto drivers the right to push me off the road and cut me off at
intersections. I should be accorded a lane to ride in, my turn at
intersections, no illegal cutting across my lane to make your turn.
If you want fair, be prepared to be fair right down the line on every
issue, don't select just one topic and sya "Let's be fair here" when that
is the only topic that you find "fair" benefits you. Your vehemence
against cyclists makes me suspect you are one of those who takes a run
at bikers on the road.
> >If people have a choice of cars, they tend not to choose efficient cars.
> >Also, I do not wish to make it illegal to drive an inefficient vehicle -
> >this is taking away a person's choice. However, I would like to correct
> >an imbalance present in that choice - the true cost of burning gasoline.
> >Then let people choose to drive whatever they want.
>
> Here is the crux of the problem. You people in government think you know
> more than us mere citizens and therefore have some kind of right to deny
> us choice. Bastards. The thing that makes me so mad is I cannot come
> up with a way short of an armed revolution to root you people out.
> Maybe it must come to that. Frankly, fuck you and your government
> energy policies. Richard, maybe if you'd drop the .gov off your
> address and substitute a .com, you'd understand.
My address is a .gov, but I work for a .com - saic.com to be precise.
Shows how much you know. Leave the profanity out of sci.energy. Profanity
is a sure sign of someone backed into a corner who has no facts or logic
to argue in favor of his position. If you had the facts or logic, you
would use them - you have in many pro-nuke posts, I know your character
there. You have clearly indicated your attitude here is one of "forget
facts or logic - I'm against it and that's that". This is a double
standard. You expect the greenpeacers to respond to your carefully
documented arguments in support of nuclear power, but then expect
everyone to roll over when your face turns red and eyes bug out with
irrational emotion on some other issue.
Get real, John.
E. Michael Smith
>In article <1993Jan19....@mlb.semi.harris.com>, j...@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
>> In article <51...@seismo.CSS.GOV> st...@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>> >Let's do it ASAP. It's hard to find any big negatives here, and it's
Yeah, only one big negative, the destruction of our national economy.
What's one negative compared with all the oil that we can leave
sitting in the ground.
>> >If we tax gas, gas use will go down, leading to a glut and lower prices,
>> >so gas price at the pump will not go up by the full amount of the tax.
>> >(supply and demand is fun, ain't it?)
Yes it it. Are you familiar with pricing and demand/supply functions
in conditions of Monopoly, Oligopoly, and the actions of Cartels?
Your naive supply/demand presumption is completely worthless.
>> No. Let's not do it. See, you set up a false choice here, "sheiks -or-
>> 'greedheads' -or- government" when in fact we already take it sans
>> Vaseline from all three. Now you propose to triple government's cut, leaving
>> the others intact - that's "and, and, and".
>
>Nope, supply and demand dictate that the government's cut will go up a lot,
>but the sheiks and greedheads will get less. Basic economics. And I prefer
Yes, very basic. So basic in fact that it no longer captures the
realities of the the world. The price of gasoline at the pump has
ranged from $.70 to $1.40 /gallon over the last year or two. I have
seen no dramatic change in consumption of gasoline during that time.
(Or are you prepared to prove that gasoline consumption is 1/2 the
quantity today that it was during the post Desert Storm $.70 'reward'
phase ? {You know, where we, the public, were rewarded for
supporting the House of Saud by being given low gasoline prices...})
>such a balance. I would much rather have my money at that pump go to the
>government that to anyone else, even if to do so requires I pay more total.
>
>> I observe that dedicated-use taxes do not have the effect intended by
>> their proponents. The MO I see is, "OK, that's funded now. So the money
>> that -was- funding that sector, now we can spend it elsewhere. Maybe
>
>Exactly why I propose an income tax reduction, indexed so that income ranges
>paying the most in gas tax have the largest reduction.
Oh God, not another complication of the income tax. Have you never done
your own income tax? Have you no idea what feeding a hungry bear does?
(Or a hungry pig, for that matter...) Attempts at balancing out one
stupid economic distortion by introducing another one somewhere else
are doomed to failure.
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe
I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
Russ Brown
>In article <1993Jan20.1...@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whit...@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>On the news last night: Greenpeace releases a commissioned report (from
>>someone in the U.S.) demonstrating that the chances of a meltdown accident
>>in a CANDU reactor are 1 in 17, which they point out are better odds than
>>the chance of throwing snake eyes with dice.
>
>Jym, do you have a copy of this report somewhere? I'd like to take a look
>at it. You may be missing 6 or 7 zeros after that 17.
>
>>Favourite line: "We're talking -- literally -- about people lying dead in
>>the street..." (Greenpeace spokesman to reporter)
>>
>>Biggest understatement (paraphrased): "These numbers don't agree with ours."
>>(Ontario Hydro spokesman)
>>
>>Second biggest understatement (paraphrased): "Making this kind of statement
>>borders on the irresponsible." (Ontario Hydro spokesman)
>
>Could Greenpeace be sued over something like this?
>
>Tino
>--
Probably not. Their attorneys would plead incompetence.
Richard Stead
> st...@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> >I disagree. First, I think gas taxes are necessary to address an existing
> >distortion in the market - that gas does not include the costs of all
> >highway construction and maintaince and all the environmental damage
> >caused directly and indirectly by cars. Gas should include these costs.
>
> Why is that? You seem to think energy is some kind of luxury to be metered
> out by the government. After all, the government has to oppose anything
> that might imply pleasure. Energy is what drives this country and
> is what enables the quality of life we all expect.
Wrong.
Take the example of railroads - who builds and maintains those? The rail
companies. But somehow we are now expected to believe the roads for
joy riding individuals and for the trucker's union are to be built
with my taxes. This is as clear a market distortion as any in economics -
railroads have to pay for their infrastructure yet are expected to compete
against truckers who get a fat government subsidy in that the government
hands them their infrastructure on a silver platter. This has little
to do with luxury, but let's talk about that, too. You want the luxury
of driving willy-nilly over mile after mile of quality road, without
any purpose at all if you so choose, but you expect the rest of the country
to pay for the road under your manicured driving toes. They have that
kind of tax in Britain, where heavy taxes are loaded on the average Joe,
just so some royalty can have some nice castles to play in.
> >Second, gas price increase will only increase recoverable reserves
> >(which are defined as oil that can be recovered economically at the
> >current price of oil).
>
> Except that the gas price increase would NOT mean more money to
> producers. it would instead simply fund more bureaucracy. The only
> money producers would get would be that they manage to suck out
> of the government tit.
Read the post a little more carefully John. The original poster was arguing
that gas prices would rise as reserves shrank until other energy sources
where competitive. He implied this would happen over a relatively short
time scale and all problems would solve themselves. I merely pointed out
that the time scale was very long, because as the price rises the amount
of recoverable reserves increases exponentially. Thus the price rises
very slowly and there is lots of gas for a long time. This point had
nothing to do with increasing the price of gas with a gas tax. The economics
of that clearly indicate much less money to the producer.
> >How? Setting quality standards has no effect on the market. Only when
> >those standards are converted to action does the market get affected.
> >For example, SCAQMD has air quality goals for LA, but this does not
> >prompt car manufacturers to improve their cars. Rather, when SCAQMD
> >translates their goals into specific emissions requirements for
> >manufacturers who want to sell their cars in LA, then the market is
> >affected. However, most manufacturers simply make a "California"
> >model of their car - they sell a more polluting version everywhere else.
>
> Do you REALLY equate any tailpipe emission to pollution?
No, but neither does my statement above, so where does your question
come from? Please read things carefully before flaming, especially
if you're going to quote the whole thing back to the net. Otherwise,
you're just wasting bandwidth.
> >hydrocarbons. Also, where do you draw the line between fossil carbon
> >fuels and "renewable" carbon fuels (assuming "renewable" simply means
> >you are returning CO2 to the atmosphere that was recently removed).
> >alcohol from corn should count as renewable. what about dead leaves?
> >what about peat? what about lignite? Where do you draw the line for
> >the tax?
>
> The answer is you don't because you don't allow the government to
> get involved. Gee, just think how much CO2 "pollution" could be
> saved if we killed a few thousand bureaucrats.
I was arguing against a carbon tax (something you undoubtedly would argue
against as well), principly because it is a tax on CO2 which I don't
agree with. CO2 is only a possible concern, there is some scientific
evidence that indicates it may be a problem, but the nature and magnitude
of the problem are unknown. I don't want a gas tax because cars make
CO2 - a carbon tax addresses only CO2, and a lot of CO2 is normal,
like your hypothetical bureaucrats, and should not be taxed. The
person posting for the carbon tax seemed to be a "green", that is
why I used the alcohol from corn argument against him, since that was
likely something he would support bigtime.
Mike Van Pelt
>In article <C0qsD...@dcs.ed.ac.uk> j...@dcs.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton) writes:
>>you are aware of just how much evidence Greenpeace has?
>You are aware of just how often they make severe errors in their press
>releases?
How about the several Greenpeace press releases demanding an immediate
ban on all use of chlorine compounds. ("You there! Put down that salt
shaker or we'll shoot!!")
After several months of ridicule, they finally managed to obtain a
fractional clue, and changed it to "organochlorine compounds."
--
Mike Van Pelt | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
m...@netcom.com | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
| sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
| can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Richard Stead
> Say, Richard. Why don't "we" just turn all our wealth over to the omniscent
> and all-encompassing government so that it can, with its unlimited wisdom,
> manage our lives for us? After all, a mere individual is an intellectual
> midget compared to the collective wisdom of "we", certainly incapable
> of managing his life or his wealth. Right?
>
> Oh yeah, that very model just finished failing on the other side of the
> ocean, didn't it?
And only 9 minutes before this post you were last seen lauding the French
nuclear program - in particular the fact that their government-run nuclear
system did not permit intervention from the "lay public" (clearly used
as a synonym for "ignorant slobs" there) taxpayers.
on the French Nuclear Industry:
> What they do NOT do, God bless 'em, is
> allow the lay public to interefer with their mission to provide the country
> with (relatively) low cost power. They probably took a look at the
> American experience and vowed not to repeat our mistakes.
John you're running your reputation into the ground with these contrasting
posts. I'm certainly not the only one in this group that has spotted this
problem of yours today.
Richard Stead
> Well it's true that the Federal Highway Trust Fund has been raided in
> recent years to pay for mass transit, and it's true that the funds are
> currently impounded to make the deficit look better. The government
> is doing the same thing with the aviation trust funds. However, Federal
> Highway Trust Fund monies pay for 90% of the cost of new US highway
> construction, 100% of new Interstate construction, and 50% of new
> State highway construction. The remainder of roads, county and city
> roads, are paid for through a formula that includes 10% Federal funds,
> and a matching grant program between the State and the local government.
> In total, Federal gas taxes pay for 68% of all road construction. State
> gas taxes, in conjunction with local property taxes, pay for the remainder.
> Since roads benefit even non-drivers through the improved transport of
> goods and services that they provide, the subsidy actually runs the other
> way with those who don't pay gasoline taxes receiving benefits from those
> who do.
I find it a little hard to believe that Interstates and US highways and
State highways are entirely funded by gas taxes. The existance of toll
booths is eminent proof against that. In fact, toll booth supporters
always argue that this is how drivers who use the road can be charged
for its construction. There are several examples - the Indiana e-w
toll road is an interstate. So is I-95 through Delaware. Both have
toll booths. What about toll bridges?
Anyway, I could believe that a big chunk of new construction is funded
through gas taxes.
But what about maintainance? what about the 1000's of bridges in this
country that need to be replaced before they collapse? What about
all the potholes? What about the roads with non-existant shoulders?
That's paid for out of my income taxes whether I use the road or not.
How about salt and snow plows in winter? How about sound barriers?
again, constructed from my taxes. What about smog? When I lived
in LA, they were considering banning barbecues to control it. Thus,
I would not be allowed to cook on a barbecue so people could continue
to drive one-to-a-car burning as much gas as they want (within SCAQMD
limits on emissions) driving as far as they want. That seems like
an incredible subsidy, though not an economic one, to me.
Ethan Bradford
The price of gasoline at the pump has ranged from $.70 to $1.40
/gallon over the last year or two. I have seen no dramatic change
in consumption of gasoline during that time.
Actually, there is a big phase lag between price changes and
production changes -- the time it takes to explore and drill new
wells. That is a partial explanation for the oil glut in the 80's --
it was in response to the oil price hikes in the early 70's.
My position on a gas tax is that we should think of all the costs to
the public of driving, such as pollution, green house gasses, noise,
running over pedestrians, consumption of finite resources, etc. Then
we make an estimate (which will be hard to do, but that is not too
important) of a money value for these problems, set fees accordingly,
and try to allocate the money to those affected. For example, the
greenhouse fee goes into a fund to pay for nature conservation
(because of all the creatures which will be killed by the warming) and
for dikes around cities; the pollution fee goes to hospitals; and so
on.
E. Michael Smith
>># Short trip: any trip that can be completed on one tank of gas or less.
I like your definition ... works for me ;-)
>I'd be delighted to have a one ton capacity 4x4
>that does 0-50 MPH in under 6 seconds and gets 38 MPG.
Serious error here ... that should be 0-60 in under 6 seconds ... ;-)
Kevin Brown
>In article <1993Jan19....@mlb.semi.harris.com>, j...@billy.mlb.semi.harris.com (James W. Swonger) writes:
>> In article <51...@seismo.CSS.GOV> st...@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
>>
>> >Let's do it ASAP. It's hard to find any big negatives here, and it's
>...
>> >If we tax gas, gas use will go down, leading to a glut and lower prices,
>> >so gas price at the pump will not go up by the full amount of the tax.
>> >(supply and demand is fun, ain't it?)
>> >
>> No. Let's not do it. See, you set up a false choice here, "sheiks -or-
>> 'greedheads' -or- government" when in fact we already take it sans
>> Vaseline from all three. Now you propose to triple government's cut, leaving
>> the others intact - that's "and, and, and".
>
>Nope, supply and demand dictate that the government's cut will go up a lot,
>but the sheiks and greedheads will get less. Basic economics. And I prefer
>such a balance.
Huh? Since when has the *government* been subject to supply and demand
economics? About the only thing I can think of is with respect to collection
of taxes: if the people have a money supply, the government can demand it.
>I would much rather have my money at that pump go to the
>government that to anyone else, even if to do so requires I pay more total.
Fine. You can give the government any amount of money you wish. Just don't
require that anybody *else* do so.
You see, if you give the government your money of your own free will, that's
your choice. No problem. But if you set up a tax, that's *coercion*.
Coercion of money is the antithesis of supply-and-demand economics.
The only thing potentially worse than a monopoly is a tax.
>> I observe that dedicated-use taxes do not have the effect intended by
>> their proponents. The MO I see is, "OK, that's funded now. So the money
>> that -was- funding that sector, now we can spend it elsewhere. Maybe
>
>Exactly why I propose an income tax reduction, indexed so that income ranges
>paying the most in gas tax have the largest reduction.
Much better to simply have them quit fucking around with the highway trust
fund and use it for what it was intended.
>Richard Stead
>Center for Seismic Studies
>Arlington, VA
>st...@seismo.css.gov
--
Kevin Brown ke...@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
Any questions?
E. Michael Smith
>In article <1993Jan20....@michael.apple.com> e...@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
> The price of gasoline at the pump has ranged from $.70 to $1.40
> /gallon over the last year or two. I have seen no dramatic change
> in consumption of gasoline during that time.
>
>Actually, there is a big phase lag between price changes and
>production changes -- the time it takes to explore and drill new
>wells. That is a partial explanation for the oil glut in the 80's --
>it was in response to the oil price hikes in the early 70's.
I say consumption, you say production. Two different worlds...
The question was, roughly, would a gov't tax cause a decrease in
consumption such that the cut taken by the producers would be
reduced. They don't have to go hunting for new supplies to
produce less... Try again, please...
>My position on a gas tax is that we should think of all the costs to
>the public of driving, such as pollution, green house gasses, noise,
>running over pedestrians, consumption of finite resources, etc. Then
>we make an estimate (which will be hard to do, but that is not too
>important) of a money value for these problems, set fees accordingly,
>and try to allocate the money to those affected. For example, the
>greenhouse fee goes into a fund to pay for nature conservation
>(because of all the creatures which will be killed by the warming) and
>for dikes around cities; the pollution fee goes to hospitals; and so
>on.
I think this is called 'recapture of externalities' or some such. It
is a much sought after Holy Grail of economic tinkerers... The problems
with which it is fraught are many and confounding. Everything from
identifing the 'true costs' of the externality to deciding who and
how it should be paid for 'fairly'. I've never met a government
that I'd trust to get it right...
Duane Jacobson
>
>b) Speaking of fair, you wouldn't be one of those who bellows like a
>cut bull everytime it is proposed to tax bicycles so that they pay
>their share of road taxes, would you? If you are not, you are a minority
And why shouldn't bicyclists bellow? Do you know of any city where there
is a comprehensive bicycle transportation system? I've never seen one.
Only random networks of unconnected bike lanes that may or may not go
anywhere useful. It can be downright dangerous to get anywhere on a bike.
Snow is not usually cleared from these lanes in the winter, and in the summer
they are littered with gravel, branches, glass, and dead animals.
If motorists had to deal with similar conditions, we'd really hear some
bitching.
Gas taxes don't come close to paying for the costs of building and maintaining
highways. The portion of my sales and income taxes that goes for highways
certainly pays for the snow-covered strip of asphalt and gravel that I
ride my bike on, probably hundreds of times over.
Gary Coffman
>
>Capital costs for distributed energy may be more but other costs may
>ameliorate since fewer centralized plants will be needed. Some will
>still be needed for high intensity industrial uses, but they will be
>more appropriately responsible for this cost. It will
>also remove a distortion in the marketplace in which decisions about
>consumption are divorced from those about production. There will be
>greater _market_ pressure to use efficienct technologies if you then
>get to pay less for your energy collection systems.
Dean, if capital costs for distributed systems are more than for
central systems, then the fact that you need fewer central systems
doesn't save you any money since you just replaced them with more
expensive systems.
Market pressure will follow Gresham's Law like it usually does.
Consumers opt for the lowest up front costs rather than for the
lowest lifetime costs. Thus the most efficient systems will be
shunned since they usually have the highest up front costs.
There's always a market for quality, but it's also a minority
market.
Mark Wilson
|That's what get's me about Libertarians in the USA. They think the world
|owes them a living, and that anybody who gets in their way ought to be
|shot.
There is a big difference between the world owes me a living and the world
does not have a right to take my living away from me.
If you do not see the difference, that may explain why you have trouble
understanding what John is talking about.
Gary Coffman
>
>That's what get's me about Libertarians in the USA. They think the world
>owes them a living, and that anybody who gets in their way ought to be
>shot.
No, Libs think that *they* don't owe anyone *else* a free living, and
that those who try to leech off of them anyway should be shot.
>Two things for you to think about
>
>1) Americans pay less tax per head than any of the other G7 Nations
So Americans are getting slightly less screwed that the poor SOBs in
the other G7 nations. This begs the old question asked by mothers
everywhere, "If all your friends jump off a cliff, do you have to
jump too?"
>2) Your infrastructure is knackered
Only in the liberal welfare state Northeast. Down here in Georgia
we have both the lowest taxes *and* the best roads. That's because
we don't let the Legislature get their sticky fingers on the gas
tax money. It's mandated by law to go *directly* to the State DOT
which in our state is essentially a totally autonomous body that
doesn't answer to the Legislature. They are a professional group
of highway engineers, not politicians.
Gary Coffman
>> Well it's true that the Federal Highway Trust Fund has been raided in
>> recent years to pay for mass transit, and it's true that the funds are
>> currently impounded to make the deficit look better. The government
>> is doing the same thing with the aviation trust funds. However, Federal
>> Highway Trust Fund monies pay for 90% of the cost of new US highway
>> construction, 100% of new Interstate construction, and 50% of new
>> State highway construction. The remainder of roads, county and city
>> roads, are paid for through a formula that includes 10% Federal funds,
>> and a matching grant program between the State and the local government.
>> In total, Federal gas taxes pay for 68% of all road construction. State
>> gas taxes, in conjunction with local property taxes, pay for the remainder.
>> Since roads benefit even non-drivers through the improved transport of
>> goods and services that they provide, the subsidy actually runs the other
>> way with those who don't pay gasoline taxes receiving benefits from those
>> who do.
>
>I find it a little hard to believe that Interstates and US highways and
>State highways are entirely funded by gas taxes. The existance of toll
>booths is eminent proof against that. In fact, toll booth supporters
>always argue that this is how drivers who use the road can be charged
>for its construction. There are several examples - the Indiana e-w
>toll road is an interstate. So is I-95 through Delaware. Both have
>toll booths. What about toll bridges?
Some states do use tolls rather than gas taxes to construct roads.
Toll roads were *illegal* in Georgia until last year when voters
approved a constitutional amendment to allow them rather than raise
the state gas tax. In Kentucky, I-65 was not scheduled to be routed
where the local politicians wanted it, so they started construction
of a toll road on their preferred route. The Feds said "fine" and
kept their money and just blessed the toll road with the I-65 label.
I suspect I-95 in Delaware is the result of similar political
manevouring. You have to realize that the Federal Defense Highways,
aka Interstates, did not include many of the routes that states
wanted. Some States built roads on *their* routes anyway to Interstate
standards and the Feds then assigned them "I" numbers. The same is
true with US highways. If States would not build to Federal specs or
along Federally approved routes, they didn't get Federal highway
money. I used to work for the Kentucky DOT, a completely political
body. It didn't bother them at all that they lost millions and millions
in Federal funds as long as the patronage needs of the politicians
were satisfied.
>Anyway, I could believe that a big chunk of new construction is funded
>through gas taxes.
>
>But what about maintainance? what about the 1000's of bridges in this
>country that need to be replaced before they collapse? What about
>all the potholes? What about the roads with non-existant shoulders?
>That's paid for out of my income taxes whether I use the road or not.
>How about salt and snow plows in winter? How about sound barriers?
>again, constructed from my taxes. What about smog? When I lived
>in LA, they were considering banning barbecues to control it. Thus,
>I would not be allowed to cook on a barbecue so people could continue
>to drive one-to-a-car burning as much gas as they want (within SCAQMD
>limits on emissions) driving as far as they want. That seems like
>an incredible subsidy, though not an economic one, to me.
The Feds say the Interstate system is *finished* and they haven't
approved a new US highway in years. All that Federal Highway Trust
Fund money is available for maintenance of Federal Highways, and
for grants to States and local governments, a patronage deal. Of
course they've impounded the money to make the deficit look smaller
so that money isn't getting out to the highway departments who do
road repair. Similarly, in Georgia, over half of State gas tax money
goes to road *maintenance*, not new construction. The one toll road
that was authorized by the constitutional amendment is on a route that
the Feds refused to authorize or fund. It's called GA-400 and is an
interstate grade highway cutting through the heart of Atlanta from the
affluent North Fulton county suburbs. It's supposed to read license
plates on cars as they whip past and monthly bills will be mailed to
users. Pretty neat.
Local roads in Georgia are funded from property taxes. Since the roads
increase the value of our property by making it accessable, this is a fair
tax. BTW police departments are net revenue generators in our state.
The costs of policing the roads are more than offset by the fines
collected.
As to Cal barbeques, I recently read a report in Science News that said
that the two largest uncontrolled sources of hydrocarbon emissions in SoCal
were commercial fast food joints and backyard barbeques. This grease
smoke was claimed to be the single largest source of airborne carcinogens
in the region. I also note that Colorado, a state with a much lower number
of cars, now requires catalytic converters on wood stoves. Perhaps some
clean air standards bodies are more interested in political correctness than
they are in clean air.
Blair Haworth
[...]
>How about the several Greenpeace press releases demanding an immediate
>ban on all use of chlorine compounds. ("You there! Put down that salt
>shaker or we'll shoot!!")
>
>After several months of ridicule, they finally managed to obtain a
>fractional clue, and changed it to "organochlorine compounds."
Yow! Every shower curtain in the country, shot to hell. I hope they'll
settle for geological disposal...
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
William Carroll
>ga...@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>> Well it's true that the Federal Highway Trust Fund has been raided in
>> recent years to pay for mass transit, and it's true that the funds are
>> currently impounded to make the deficit look better. The government
>> is doing the same thing with the aviation trust funds. However, Federal
>> Highway Trust Fund monies pay for 90% of the cost of new US highway
>> construction, 100% of new Interstate construction, and 50% of new
>> State highway construction. The remainder of roads, county and city
>> roads, are paid for through a formula that includes 10% Federal funds,
>> and a matching grant program between the State and the local government.
>> In total, Federal gas taxes pay for 68% of all road construction. State
>> gas taxes, in conjunction with local property taxes, pay for the remainder.
>> Since roads benefit even non-drivers through the improved transport of
>> goods and services that they provide, the subsidy actually runs the other
>> way with those who don't pay gasoline taxes receiving benefits from those
>> who do.
>I find it a little hard to believe that Interstates and US highways and
>State highways are entirely funded by gas taxes.
A quick check of the 1990 Statistical Abtract of the US yields the
following data: (all numbers in millions)
1987 total receipts for highways $65,702
1987 total disbursements for highways 65,793
1987 gas tax reciepts, state and federal 24,926
1987 Federal highway trust fund reciepts 14,300
1987 Federal highway trust fund disbursements 13,500
1987 Federal highway trust fund balance 13,600
1987 was the most recent year for which they had numbers in all categories.
--
William R. Carroll (Encore Computer, Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcar...@encore.com
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form
up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that
we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method
it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion,
inefficiency, and demoralization." -Petronius Arbiter, 210 BC(?)
Don Palmrose
> >The
> >poor who generally cannot affort a high efficient auto get hit harder than the
> >rich guy who can affort it without a loss in lifestyle.
> First, high efficiency cars are not the more expensive ones.
>
That is true and something you may have misread if you thought that I was
stating that efficiency means high cost. It doesn't. My point was that the
poor cannot even affort these "low cost high efficiency cars". From my living
all across the country over the last 14 years, the poor can seem to only
affort that really old car because it only cost them $500 to $1000. Having
a high gas tax will drastically affect their life also because these cars
are also highly inefficient. Just drive through one of the poor neighborhoods
of Washington D.C. sometime (like around the Washington Navy Yards) and see
what kind of cars they have. Last time I was there, I did not see alot
of the "low cost high efficiency cars" around. Then take a trip out to the
poor rural areas of Virginia and look at the cars they have. You will find
the same thing.
>
> Second, I want to address the problem of income classes disproportioantely
> hit by the gas tax. I want a reduction in personal income tax rates
> that is indexed such that income classes that contribute the most gas tax
> get the largest reduction in tax rate. That is emminantly fair - that
> way if everyone in your income range drove the same kind of car, the
> total taxes you pay wouldn't really change. Then if you drive a less
> efficient car, or drive excessively more miles than others in your income
> range, that is your choice, and you should pay for your decision.
I'm sorry Richard, this is totally unworkable for the people below the poverty
line. They do not pay very much in taxes and would have to pay alot for the
gas they use which is not much different than the amount I use for those
living in places like Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. Again the working poor
generally cannot afford the "low cost high efficiency cars" and will end up
paying more under your scheme.
>
> Third, if you're really worried about it, buy a motorcycle. You can take
> them on any roads, they often have better range than cars, they are way
> more fuel efficient and far less expensive than any car.
>
A motorcycle is no better than a bicycle during the winter months up here in
Idaho. Everyone I know with motorcycles put them away for 7 to 8 months a
year here in Idaho. You really fail to grasp the affect winter weather has
on people and their choices for autos up here in the Rocky Mountain states.
Plus, a motorcycle is more like a hobby for those people living in the
Rockies.
> The fact that the problems you pose are so easy to solve only strengthens
> my resolve in this matter. I really think that a big gas tax could be
> instituted that would work great and not unfairly affect anyone.
>
> --
> Richard Stead
> Center for Seismic Studies
> Arlington, VA
> st...@seismo.css.gov
>
Again, you fail to see how dependent people in the West are on their autos for
their livelyhood, safety, and comfort. You cannot expect something that could
work in an urban environment will have no drastic long-lasting impact on the
rural west. People out here do not like people in the east trying to social
engineer their lives especially from people who cannot comprehend the kind of
life they have to lead. This is what you want to do and if you cannot see or
understand the points I am making, you truly have the blinders on concerning
this topic.
Don Palmrose
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========
Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights. No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
John De Armond
>And why shouldn't bicyclists bellow? Do you know of any city where there
>is a comprehensive bicycle transportation system? I've never seen one.
No, and I know of no US comprehensively developed transportation based on
the rickshaw or the pogo stick or for people who walk on their hands
either. Not that I'd be surprised to hear one day that some organization of
pogoists is demanding federal meney to build such a system. That is
the new american way, isn't it?
>Only random networks of unconnected bike lanes that may or may not go
>anywhere useful. It can be downright dangerous to get anywhere on a bike.
>Snow is not usually cleared from these lanes in the winter, and in the summer
>they are littered with gravel, branches, glass, and dead animals.
Might I suggest you avail yourself of some form of transportation more
amenable to conditions extant? Like, for instance, a car.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility?
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers?
Marietta, Ga | Send ur snail-mail address to
j...@dixie.com | per...@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
William Carroll
>>And why shouldn't bicyclists bellow? Do you know of any city where there
>>is a comprehensive bicycle transportation system? I've never seen one.
>
>No, and I know of no US comprehensively developed transportation based on
>the rickshaw or the pogo stick or for people who walk on their hands
>either.
Of course, a large percentage of Americans own bikes. Can you say the same
for pogo sticks and rickshaws? Lots of Americans use bikes as transportation.
Is the same true for pogo sticks and rickshaws?
Would you like to return to a realistic discussion, John? Or are completely
ridiculous comparisons your only refuge?
>>It can be downright dangerous to get anywhere on a bike.
>>Snow is not usually cleared from these lanes in the winter, and in the summer
>>they are littered with gravel, branches, glass, and dead animals.
>
>Might I suggest you avail yourself of some form of transportation more
>amenable to conditions extant? Like, for instance, a car.
So where is everyone going to drive those cars, John? Can they double the
number of lanes on I-75 through downtown Atlanta once more? Are you
willing to pay the bill for that project?
And what about the people who can't afford cars? You know, those same
working poor that will fair so badly under a gas tax. Since you are
proposing a transporation system that requires a car, are you willing to
provide a car to everyone that can't afford one? If not, how are they
going to get to work? Or do they just go on welfare instead?
And you never did say what you thought a cyclist's fair share of road costs
would be. I'd love to see your numbers.
Richard Stead
> Only in the liberal welfare state Northeast. Down here in Georgia
> we have both the lowest taxes *and* the best roads. That's because
> we don't let the Legislature get their sticky fingers on the gas
> tax money. It's mandated by law to go *directly* to the State DOT
> which in our state is essentially a totally autonomous body that
> doesn't answer to the Legislature. They are a professional group
> of highway engineers, not politicians.
Well, I applaud the fact that you keep that tax money from the politicos,
but that is only a small contribution to the condition of your roads.
The main advantage you have over the NE is the lack of snow and ice.
It is no small coincidence that the states with the worst road conditions
are those along the freeze/thaw line - despite the fact that at least
one (PA) is reliably conservative.
BTW - you now have given me an example where directed taxes work to
offer to all those who argue that my suggestion of a large, directed
federal gas tax couldn't work. I'll just say "Why not ask Gary in Georgia?"
Thanks.