CERDAFIED - Every time you get that power bill, you cringe. The costs are out of control! I don’t recall my parents fretting over frequent rate increases. Utility costs were fairly stable and affordable.
Though there were times that I remember having the gas turned off during the winter as the cost of Christmas prohibited the luxury of both heat and gifts.
The government sold the American people a whole lot of swamp land called subsidized nuclear power. We were going to spend billions to subsidize an industry for a period of time, and in return we would receive cheap energy in our future. How has that bargain basement deal worked out for you?
For over fifty years the government has subsidized the nuclear industry, for over 50 years your rates went up, and for over fifty years the government failed to regulate the industry adequately, or find a viable solution to the nuclear waste issue. I think that brings us up to speed.
Other than the pesky little fact that we have had two major nuclear disasters and they both remain a threat to humanity as we speak. Oops … ssshhhhh … we’re not talking about that anymore.
Let’s pretend that isn’t worthy of discussion or new policy. Instead let’s pay the ever increasing ecological costs, economical costs, and we can throw in the cost to humanity as an added bonus.
Once you have subsidized the nuclear industry past their productivity age, and once you have subsidized them past 100 % of their yield, does it sound reasonable to stay the course? Even decommissioning them and managing the waste disposal and nuclear waste clean up means we will still be paying for this epic failed mission for decades to come.
Not satisfied to go this path alone, we have sold other nations on the perks of nuclear power. As the saying goes, “fools rush in”. Besides, if something should go wrong, certainly the United States has either the solution or the support, right? Ask Japan what they think about “American support” and “American ingenuity”. Never mind, they are too politically correct to offend and too humble to share the blame.
Nuclear power subsidies come in many forms; including loan guarantees, tax breaks, accident liability caps, and direct payments. Subsidies vary by type of ownership – public or private. Taxpayers are asked to support the ever increasing costs for new reactors by lobbyists who have little incentive to change their business model of begging and squandering. They do not carry the risks of its industry, we the tax payers do.
The hidden costs of nuclear power allows the industry to misstate it’s economic worthiness and it further delays superior alternatives that have existed for decades and is now waiting to suckle on the subsidized teat. New industries without the inherit risks of nuclear energy have been kept at bay for nearly a century, and some are suffering due to unfair competition as a result of these subsidies.
The US government gives billions in subsidies to the corn industry in general, and corn ethanol in particular. Corn-based ethanol consumed 76% of federal government renewable energy subsidies in 2007. Leaving very little for more environmentally friendly renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Even worse, is the huge drain on water resources, gulping down up to 2,138 liters of water per liter of ethanol. All the while, farmers who produce fruits and vegetables (with the exception of corn), don’t get a dime in government subsidies.
It’s not that I am advocating subsidies, but I am asking you if they are fair, and at what point do they become the problem and not the solution?
Should half of the $713 million in subsidies given to the US fishing industry, be reconsidered when it directly contributes to over-fishing? A new study by the Environmental Working Group found that lower overhead costs can promote increased fishing capacity. Meaning more fish are caught than can be naturally replaced. Up to 25% of the world’s fishery stocks are overexploited or depleted according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.
Why should the coal industry, with its dominance of the American energy market for a century, need subsidies? When considering that the industry spent $47 million last year on PR alone, coal companies are certainly milking the government for all it’s worth. Meanwhile they are pumping greenhouse gases and carcinogens into the air. Fear over the economic repercussions of a scaled-back coal industry has replaced common sense and sound fiscal policies.
Fossil fuels received over $70 billion in subsidies between 2002 and 2008, while traditional sources of renewable energy were given just $12.2 billion, according to a study by the Environmental Law Institute. Is this a fair trade off?
The nuclear industry’s $600 million lobbying effort paid off when President Obama agreed to grant loan guarantees for nuclear power plants. Despite concerns regarding uranium mining and the storage of radioactive waste, the $55 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are moving forward.
Nuclear power advocates are still selling the same tired promises of cheap energy. Apparently the “nuclear renaissance” is underway despite nuclear disasters. By 2050, 300 new plants are expected to be built. Congress authorized massive loan guarantees specifically for the nuclear industry through the Title 17 program for “energy technology innovation.” Guaranteeing $18.5 billion to date, an average cost of $9 billion per reactor, Congress has proven once again that our nation’s symbolic bald eagle has turned into an ostrich with its head buried in the nuclear waste sand.
The suppression of alternative power is a century old. Yet it stills boggles the mind and troubles the soul, that no one has managed to resurrect its perfect solution. Particularly now when poverty is so far-reaching and unrelenting. Now when the toll of nuclear energy will be paid by generations to come.
Case in point: Did you know that the Detriot Electric car, which was powered by a rechargeable lead acid battery, was sold in 1907 by Anderson Electric Car Company. This was before the advent of the gasoline powered car! It could drive 80 miles between charges.
In 1908, Henry Ford began mass production of the Model T. The Ford Motor Company was a subsidiary of the Standard Oil Company which Rockefeller owned. This was the root of our enslavement to the oil industry.
Nikola Tesla, inventor of the AC generator, was supported by the Pierce-Arrow Co. and General Electric in 1931. Pierce Arrow proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we didn’t need gasoline to power our cars; instead we could use electromagnetic waves, a free and abundant source of power. The advantages of the noise free, clean air, fast starting, no tune ups, cheap to operate car was easy to see. So how could Ford compete? Tesla’s cars were lighter, faster, had unlimited range, never in need of recharge, and you never had to pay one red cent to the power company or oil magnets.
The problem was … the government couldn’t make money from this type of electric car. With gas powered cars the government could charge a tax on every gallon of gasoline or diesel. Freely available electromagnetic energy could not be metered and subsequently taxed.
Where would we be today if we had embraced the free, clean energy? Perhaps, a few less wars, a few more cures, a society where a parent was still in the home tending to the needs of their family. I believe that the educational system would have thrived in that kind of “human needs above greed” society. We will never build Utopia, but we could build a kinder, wiser society, if only we chose to.
Recommendations: The Union of Concerned Scientists issued a Report of Recommendations for policy makers to consider implementing. It is but a starting point, to unravel the protracted mess we are in.
(Lisa Cerda is a contributor to CityWatch, a community activist, Chair of Tarzana Residents Against Poorly Planned Development, and former Tarzana Neighborhood Council board member.) –cw
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 67
Pub: Aug 21, 2012
