Posted 8 months, 18 days ago in 
Loading ...
This is regarding taxes, energy and global warming
First, property taxes in Mesa County have doubled in the last 20 years while assessed valuation has tripled. Assessed valuation of our county in 1988 was $642 million. Today it is $1.78 billion. All of our growth has NOT lowered our taxes at all. There seems to be a disconnect here.
Second, many folks are unhappy with the current drilling and energy development. However, their only answer seems to be to delay and postpone energy. Very few folks want to give up their present quality of life, so energy is a must.
Finally, on global warming, many people think carbon dioxide is the main culprit here.
There is one answer that will solve all three of the above-mentioned issues and that is nuclear energy. If our county commissioners and local chambers of commerce would get serious about soliciting free-enterprise companies, to build a $10 billion nuclear plant here in Mesa County, it would do the following things:
It would more than double our present assessed valuation and may cut our property taxes in half.
Energy wise, we need to switch from gas, oil and coal to nuclear. Many advantages would occur, including no more drilling. Too bad it can’t be done over night.
As for the global warming, nuclear would eliminate carbon dioxide from gas, oil and coal usage.
With enough nuclear energy, our pure water problems would be solved by de-salting seawater.
Government can speed this conversion up and make it cost effective by getting out of the way.
KURT CORNUM
Palisade
17 Responses to “Nuclear energy will solve three problems”
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nuclear energy is probably the worst imaginable idea for Mesa County, or anywhere in the USA, for that matter. It would solve nothing that you’ve proposed. Nuclear energy doesn’t even have a seat at the table when discussing a “new energy economy.” At what point will Americans wake up and stop lying to ourselves about the TRUE costs and externalities of energy supply?
As our brilliant neighbor, Amory Lovins says:
“Why divert further public resources from market winners to the market loser? Why pay a premium to incur nuclear power’s uniquely disagreeable problems? (No other energy technology spreads do-it-yourself-kits and innocent disguises for making weapons of mass destruction, nor creates terrorist targets or potential for mishaps that can devastate a region,
nor creates wastes so hazardous, nor is unable to restart for days after an unexpected shutdown.) Why incur the opportunity cost of buying a costlier option that both saves less carbon per dollar and is slower per megawatt to deploy?”
Do yourself a favor and read:
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-08_NukePwrEcon.pdf
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
The answers are found in energy efficiency, lifestyle changes, building redesign, transportation overhaul (less cars & more trains), and power supplied by an honest mix of solar, wind, ocean, geothermal, hydrogen, biomass, and hydrocarbons. All given equal footing to compete in a free marketplace.
Therefore, the only way that we could begin discussing nuclear energy is at that point when electic utilty companies are required to:
-Absorb the cradle-to-grave costs of nuclear waste disposal (including mining & milling wastes)
-Decommission plants when worn out, and
-Insure reactors against possible accidents and terrorist attacks
Any idea how much solar energy could be generated in sunny Mesa County if we used your proposed $10,000,000,000 nuke plant budget? Maybe supplement that budget with a small fraction of the $50,000,000,000+/year that you & I hand over to the oil & gas industry as subsidies & incentives every year, year after year.
Building new nuclear plants in a competitive electricity market is simply not economical at best, and extremely dangerous at worst.
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 9:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nuclear may “solve” three problems but results in 500 or more new problems.
Nuclear is the most expensive way to generate electricity. No private company is willing to invest in this sort of a boondoggle. Thus, any nuke plant must be heavily government subsidized. So, more nukes mean higher taxes.
No private company can afford the insurance - thus this must also be subsidized by taxpayers (most likely in clean up costs after the fact). Thus, more nukes means even higher taxes.
80% of our federal energy research & development support has gone to nuclear energy over the last 50+ years. Look where it’s gotten us. In other words, part of your high taxes the last 50 years have been squandered because of ideologues pushing for nukes.
Nukes require abundant water for cooling, thus they are oh so very wrong for the US southwest. So, more nukes means LESS water for you (unless, of course, you are willing to pay even higher taxes).
In summary, if you want higher taxes and less water, then go ahead and support nuclear power.
Posted April 25th, 2008 at 10:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think there might be a time and place for limited nuclear power, but I must agree with Bruce86 … the desert southwest is, to say the least not a good place for it.
This is, however a prime region for wind and solar. And I am as usual puzzled that some people would call for nuclear instead these much cleaner and safer alternatives, especially in regions like ours where wind and solar have SO much potential — for self reliance and the great economic benefits that would go along with it all.
Posted April 26th, 2008 at 8:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And how is it that France generates most of its power from nuclear energy?
This is the problem with radical environmentalists. The reason nuclear power plants are so expensive to build is because environmentalists put up every possible roadblock to make it near impossible. And since when have environmentalists given a hoot about cost? After all, all they need to do is to raise income and corporate taxes and they will get all the money they need to fix the world.
Nuclear power would allow for the production of electricity without CO2 emmissions. It would allow us to do away with gasoline by moving to electric cars. That would reduce the use of oil to a minimum. This is the solution to global warming.
Posted April 26th, 2008 at 8:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog — Do you see any place for wind or solar? If you are against these, (not assuming you are, but IF you are) then why?
Just because those rotten no good environmentalists are for ‘em?
Posted April 26th, 2008 at 8:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Naw, we’re all for wind and solar.
It would screw up the environment digging all those holes and ditches to run power lines to my other house.
I’m interest in building a nuclear plant in my back yard to service the entire neighborhood, wanna get in at the beginning?
A small plant could be built fairly cheaply, meet all the stupid “do-nothing” regulations, be in production in 6 months, need less water, and have a lifespan of over 100 years with very little maintenance.
50 kilowatts maximum would take care of a fairly good sized neighborhood.
Unless algore moved in.
Between now and then, I could use 2kw solar panels, got any cheap?
Posted April 26th, 2008 at 8:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I have no problem with wind and solar other than they are, at this point, inefficient. uneconomical, and require subsidies. We should continue to look for ways to make them competitive. Having said that, they will never be as efficient as nuclear power. We were building nuclear power plants in this country, without subsidies, in the 60’s and 70’s because they are more efficient than generating with coal. What has happened is that after Three Mile Island the environmenalists made it extremely expensive to build them. We have never had a radiation release from any plants in this country.
Posted April 26th, 2008 at 10:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The sun will shine and the wind will blow no matter what the politicians do about it …. therefore solar and wind power do not “require” subsidies.
I am convinced both can be superbly efficient. But I don’t need to convince you of that, nor could I. You’ll see in a short time.
Do you think the oil industry is not subsidized? Or ethanol? Subsidized to the hilt, both.
I wonder if all of the nuclear power plants in France are all owned and operated privately with no help or regulation from the government. Hmmmm.
Posted April 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I don’t know where you get your information that solar and wind power do not require subsidies. They most certainly do. If they can become competetive without subsidies, I’ll be for it.
Ethanol from corn is a sham. It’s only reason for its existance is the Iowa caucus. The ethanol subsidies need to be eliminated and corn based ethanol will disappear.
The oil industry does not need subsidies and should not get any. I would however, be willing to provide subsidies to anyone, including the oil industry, for work aimed at developing alternative energy sources. For example, I would be in favor of providing a floor under the price of oil for a company willing to produce shale oil. If it is determined that shale oil is competitive at $x/barrel (as long as x is not a ridiculous number), I would provide a subsidy, in the event oil prices drop, that would pay the producer the difference between x and the price of oil.
I would be in favor of subsidizing nuclear power if it is necessary. It would dramatically reduce the consumption of gasoline if we are able to come up with an electric powered vehicle that is acceptable to most Americans. I would impose a gradually rising gasoline tax. That would lead Americans to buy smaller vehicles that consume less gas (as is the case in Europe). I would use the additional tax money to subsidize the development of alternative energy sources, like nuclear and a better electric battery.
We need to get off oil for environmental and national security reasons. Solar and wind are not going to do it.
Posted April 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I agree with you 100 percent about coorn ethanol. It is insane that this is not only subsidized but mandated. Any way you look at it, economically, environmentally, from a national security perspective, etc … it is a complete disaster.
I also agree that energy is a key part of national security, and am also not against smart subsidies for smart energy production.So we agree there also.
The only area where we disagree is soar and wind power. Some places they are subsidized (like Colorado), some places they are not (like Michigan). (”Where I get my information” about this, is by working for a company that is building a multi-million dollar LEED certified warehouse in Michigan, by the way).
If the government does not subsidize these clean technologies they will continue to evolve anyway; perhaps at a slower pace but the private sector (driven by the free market) will make it happen.
Posted April 27th, 2008 at 8:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hate to spoil your parade, but nuclear power is the most subsidized form of electricity generation.
- The 2005 energy act included $4billion in subsidies.
- Since the 50’s, over 80% of federal energy research money has gone towards nuclear power.
- As far as I can recall, not a single nuke plant has been built in the US without heavy government subsidies.
- Today there is not a single private company with any plans to build a nuke plant with only private money.
- No nuke plant has sufficient private insurance to cover the costs of clean up after an accident.
Also, you might want to investigate France before you start using them as an example. They have much less nuke power than we do AND they are rapidly ramping up their wind power because they’ve experienced the drawbacks of nukes during droughts.
Putting current solar technology on about 10% of the roof space in the US would generate ALL of the US electricity needs. Double that roof coverage and use the power to split hydrogen off water and there’s your way to have electricity at night and during cloudy spells.
Germany is rapidly increasing their solar capability. However, there is not a single location in Germany that has as good of sun as Seattle! Germany just sucks for sunny days, but they know that solar will provide their needs.
And then, we can add wind too. We can use natural gas, oil, and nukes to supplement this and cover for breakdowns and long cloudy spells.
In other words, solar and wind CAN do it. Unless you think Americans aren’t smart enough to figure this out. Is this what you think?
Posted April 28th, 2008 at 8:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From Wikepidia:
“Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent coal-fueled or gas-fueled plant. However, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel, and natural gas significantly more expensive than coal — thus, capital costs aside, natural gas-generated power is the most expensive.”
A good part of the reason that nuclear power plants are so expensive to build is because:
“In the U.S. many new regulations were put in place in the years before and again immediately after the Three Mile Island accident’s partial meltdown, resulting in delaying plants’ operation by many years. The NRC has new regulations in place now, and the next plants will have NRC Final Design Approval before the customer buys them, and a Combined Construction and Operating License will be issued before construction starts, guaranteeing that if the plant is built as designed then it will be allowed to operate - thus avoiding lengthy hearings after completion.”
Subsidies:
“In the US, public research money for nuclear fission declined from 2,179 to 35 million dollars between 1980 and 2000.[30] However, in order to restart the industry, the next six US reactors will receive subsidies equal to those of renewables and, in the event of cost overruns due to delays, at least partial compensation for the overruns (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program).”
New Construction:
“Four ABWRs are already in operation in Japan, and one more is being built in Japan and two in Taiwan. Two of the Japanese plants were brought in under budget and ahead of schedule.[2] The 1600 MWe European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) reactor is being built in Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Finland. A joint effort of French AREVA and German Siemens AG, it will be the largest PWR in the world. In December 2006 (approximately 18 months after construction began), completion of construction was about 18 months behind the original schedule so completion was expected 2010-2011.[3][4] The Olkiluoto project has benefited from various forms of government support and subsidies, including liability limitations, preferential financing rates, and export credit agency subsidies.[5] Several Chinese plants are planned as of 2008, as are several Indian plants.[6] Russia has begun building the world’s first floating nuclear power plant. The £100 million vessel, the Lomonosov, is the first of seven plants (70 MWe per ship) that Moscow says will bring vital energy resources to remote Russian regions.[7]”
Progress on moving towards nuclear energy in this country has been very slow due to opposition from environmentalists. That is unfortunate.
Early Site Permit Applications have been filed in the U.S. for several AP1000 plants.
According to the NRC, 28 new U.S. nuclear power units are planned, as of 2007.[8]
As of 2008, the UK has indicated that it will take steps to encourage private operators to build new nuclear power plants in the coming years to meet projected energy needs as fossil fuel prices climb, however there would be no subsidies from the UK government for nuclear power.
Posted April 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish - even though convenient, finger pointing at “environmentalists” is flat wrong. Nuclear is a bad call, any way you shake it. The economics of constructing new plants & addressing waste issues simply don’t pencil out.
Think about other aspects of this - DOE has requested $225,000,000,000 (billion) for their “cleanup” budget in 2008. That’s continued mop-up after 60+ years of this mess (for both enery & weaponry purposes) at places like Hanford, WA (the number contaminated site in the USA).
Should we continue dumping billions & billions of our tax dollars down the rathole to further subsidize a dangerous industry? Nuclear energy will never be a private-sector enterprise - you & I & kids yet unborn will pay the high price forever.
Posted April 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nigel, there is no easy solution to the problem of replacing oil with an energy source that reduces pollution, increases national security, and does not destroy the economy. Solar and wind, even if they became efficient and competitive, are not ready to replace gasoline.
Posted April 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m completely in agreement with you. This is an incredibly urgent situation, which demands quick action & full attention on behalf of politicians and all US residents. There is no quick-fix, and there is nothing right now that will replace crude oil (a miraculous substance, by the way, in terms of energy content & ease of handling).
However, we must hold onto that oil since it’ll be needed for constructing a lot of solar panels & wind turbines (not to mention nearly everything we’ve based our consumer society on). Let’s get damn creative, real fast, and quit bickering across party lines.
What will destroy the economy is a dead or unhealthy environment. There is no economy if we poison our air & water. The economy is soley dependent upon the environment.
Posted April 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nigel, we need to be realistic. Gasoline consumption has to be reduced substantially. Solar and wind won’t do it. You can mandate that car companies reduce MPG and force them to make smaller cars. But most Americans want to keep their big cars. You can put a big tax on gasoline and force folks to demand smaller cars. But you first need to convince the majority of the population to accept this. Show me a politician running on a platform to force people into small cars. You won’t find any because they won’t get elected. My son just bought a Honda Civic hybrid. Not because reducing US oil consumption is his top priority. It’s because he doesn’t want to spend so much money on gas. Until folks who talk up the “let’s reduce oil consumption” objective do as they say, it won’t happen. It works in Europe, it can work here.
Posted April 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
With transportation - we can start right here, right now, by:
1. Implementing a real tax on gas (and carbon); offset with lowering income taxes (and hacking the pentagon budget and oil & gas subsidies).
2. Pouring real money into high-speed, inter-city rail systems, in order to move the most people in the most efficient manner (while we witness the demise of the airline industry at the same time). A good start, for example, by shifting big chunks of funds away from DOT projects like T-Rex over to improvements on a rail system thru the I-70 mountain corridor.
3. Seriously raising mileage standards for cars & trucks (like to 45 mpg in cars in 10 years or less), by using stronger & lighter & safer materials (such as carbon fiber).
4. Getting plug-in-hybrid vehicles (including cars & delivery trucks) on the road immediately, and charging them at night with wind & solar power (during non-peak hours). Rather than waiting/hoping for the perfect battery for an all-electric vehicle. VW is close with a 70-mpg diesel hybrid car(Mercedes also with a clean diesel hybrid in the popular Sprinter van).
These are all things that we could be doing TODAY, if we’d stop sucking our thumbs and debating about gay marriage & who is aligned with the right sky God. With a small fraction of the world’s population, the USA burns thru 25% of the world’s oil on a daily basis, with more than half of that pissed away in very inefficient forms of transport. Seems like a huge opportunity for jobs & economic longevity also.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.