Slashdot Mirror

An article of subsidies for nuclear Nuclear Subsidies
"The Forbes article above explicitly point out that decommissioning costs are included in the price." since when is the price agreed on the initial contract the actual price at the end of the build? They are always massively under quoted to try and make it seem a reasonable venture. it doesn;t matter what the reasons are for cost/time overrun, its the reality. "They also point out that past cost overruns in nuclear power were often the result of poor money management, not any flaws in the technology or construction." precisely and thats why they are so crap in built time and cost overruns. How many have actually been built on time/cost, I couldn't find any, all i can find is massive cost and time overruns.
You are living in the land of unicorns

and says that nuclear energy is, "dirty, dangerous and expensive, and should be precluded on all of those counts", when the actual data shows just the opposite.

If you take into account all of the government subsidies, including covering the industry's uninsurable risks, I'm not sure whether at least the cost argument holds.

You forgot that it's the only form of energy that's currently regulated to include all of externalities in its cost.

No, since for nuclear a bunch of externalities are covered by the government at a rate that is below what the market is willing to offer (since the market doesn't want to cover them at all).

For a fair comparison, you'd need to require coal to catch everything (CO2, sulphur, other toxins, more radioactive isotopes than a nuclear plant, etc)
  from all chimneys, transport and store that securely for hundreds of years.

I doubt Jill Stein is very much in favour of coal fired plants.

And despite that, nuclear is still competitive and causes many orders of magnitude less deaths.

Competitive with massive government subsidies, yes. Of course, coal also gets lots of subsidies.

It's going to see if this continues without the tax breaks

Aren't you also interested in seeing if the coal industry and the oil industry are able to continue without tax breaks?

http://www.taxpayer.net/librar...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

And that's a wrap! AC down below has forgotten - or refuses to account for the huge amount of subsidies received by Coal, Oil and Natgas.

Now of course, the crowning acievement of subsidized energy Nookyalar! http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-...

https://lucian.uchicago.edu/bl...

I'm not even anti-nuc, but dammit, I'll wager a cup of crap that they are "free market" advocates. Those billions for that, and the taxpayers bearing the reisks of nuc plants sounds like the invisible hand of the free market is giving a reach around hand job to the nuc industry.

It's going to see if this continues without the tax breaks

Aren't you also interested in seeing if the coal industry and the oil industry are able to continue without tax breaks?

http://www.taxpayer.net/librar...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

This concept of "oil subsidies" is just nonsense.

Oil subsidies are huge, a fact you can easily confirm with a few seconds of Googling. Here's what I found in less than 10 seconds:

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.taxpayer.net/images...

Actually, they should stop their money wasting, useless projects. One of them that I live near, is a $170 million dollar waste of money on I-405, north of Kirkland, WA. The majority of the money is being spent on a "fly-over" ramp to mitigate a problem that could have been fixed with better signage on the freeway.

Northbound on I-405, there is a hill, resulting in a blind intersection. The signs indicating correct lanes for through traffic and off-ramps appear 200-300 feet before the ramps, after the crest of the hill. The result: Mad panic as drivers attempt to weave across several lanes of traffic. The proper solution (which was never even tried): Put up a fscking sign half a mile or so BEFORE the hill to get drivers into the correct lanes. The cost of that would probably be less than a million dollars, even with the exorbitant pay.

Detroit didn't come up with SUVs to dupe anybody. SUVs were popular because of their versatility, perceived sturdiness and their status.

And because the US decided to give Americans up to $100,000.00 in tax rebates for buying SUVs. Not only did this prop up Detroit and shit all over the environment, according to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, this cost American taxpayers $840 million and $987 million for every 1,000 vehicles sold. They called it "Robin Hood in reverse.

With their recent rise in popularity, accountants have been advising more and more of their clients to take advantage of this loophole in the law. The tax break applies specifically to small business owners -- including doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, real estate agents, and independent contractors -- who buy a truck or SUV for business purposes. Thus, the deduction is legal whether the vehicle is used to haul seven construction workers, 3,000 pounds of plumbing tools, or one certified public accountant. The main requirement is that the buyer uses their SUV more than 50% of the time in their business.

So, for example, last year a business owner could deduct $25,000 outright off the cost of a new SUV. Under Bush's economic stimulus package (which became law last year) the purchaser got an extra 30% bonus deduction off the balance of the sticker price. Subtract another 20% a year in depreciation over five years, and business owners who purchased SUVs already got a hefty tax write-off. Now, Bush wants to increase the small business deduction from $25,000 to $75,000.

In fact, raising the cap on business equipment to $75,000 will make it possible to write off the entire cost of most SUVs (including the Hummer H2 - MSRP $49,270 and BMW X5 - MSRP $40,195) in the first year. Others, like the Hummer H1 will be practically free to the business owner.

W

Conventional sources have had decades of government subsidies. For example AFAIK, there isn't a single commercial nuke plant out there (US) that has all private insurance, the government insures them for big failure, plus the government picked up the billions of dollars (in 1950s and 60s money) tab to even develop the things in the first place. Centralized magecorpos grid electricity relies on land seizures with no compensation to the owners for powerlines. buncha stuff. Back in ye olden days (1920s) they *forced* people to give up their early model windchargers (there was a really robust market then too) if they wanted to add into the grid. Basically killed that market off on purpose to prop up the fatcats who wanted to send you a bill every month forever. Anyway, here's an overview site: http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/oil-gas.htm

So, as a corollary, if conventional sources were really cheap, they wouldn't have needed subsidies, and decentralized "green" power would have done much better (rent, or build equity and own, two choices there)

You must have a rather slippery seat.

The 2002 Farm Bill guarantees corn farmers a price of $2.60 per bushel in 2002-2003 and $2.63 per bushel in 2004-2007 for the corn that they produce. In order to realize this price, corn farmers are eligible to receive a combination of direct payments, loans, and counter-cyclical payments.

Fixed Direct Payments: Set at a fixed rate of $.28 per bushel for crop years 2002-2007. These payments are based on historic crop yields, so farmers are not obligated to grow any crop in order to receive benefits. Since these payments increase in direct proportion to the acreage and yield of eligible crops planted, they encourage larger tracts of land to be used for corn cultivation.

Loans: The marketing assistance loan program and the loan deficiency payment program work to bring the price of corn up above $1.98 per bushel in 2002-2003, and $1.95 per bushel in 2004- 2007. These non-recourse loans allow the producer to choose when and how much of the loan they are going to pay back. They skew market signals by acting as a price floor for current production and encourage overproduction. Counter-Cyclical Payments: If the price of corn is still below the $2.63 target, counter-cyclical payments are used. They work in the same way as direct payments, and are based upon historical crop acreage and yield instead of current production. Again, this means that producers do not have to produce in order to receive payments.

Conclusion:
Corn production is the most heavily subsidized commodity in the United States today. Payments are extremely concentrated and benefits flow overwhelmingly to corporate agribusiness. Current government policy is pumping up the bottom line of modern, profitable corporations and leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill.

pdf

OTOH, I believe there is a genuine problem with people paying for a lot of services that are only used by a few to enrich themselves. I resent the continual implication that because we all use (in the sense of insurance, even if we never direct claim it) some services funded by government that this somehow means any service funded by government should get a pass. Frankly, I'm willing to receive less from the government in exchange for paying less to the government. I don't see this as an unreasonable request even if it does happen to be "selfish".

Further, when you talk of "benefit to society", you should consider the opportunity cost of spending that money versus not collecting it in the first place. For example, somewhere around a billion dollars a year is on corn ethanol subsidies which as far as I can tell takes as much fossil fuel equivalent to produce as it displaces. In comparison, sugar cane, which is a far more efficient source for ethanol, is propped up by around half a billion dollars in direct subsidies a year and protected by import tarriffs. Sugar prices in the States have been at times triple the global market for sugar. And peanut subsidies are enjoyed mainly by "quota holders". If you aren't a quota holder then you don't benefit unless you can rent from someone who does hold part of the quota. These quotas cost US consumers billions per year. In return we get the "benefit" of having our food supply controlled by business interests in the name of the "family farm" (of which admittedly there are a few still out there) and food security.

Justifying the "gigantic" military on the basis of the miniscule amount of research it funds is silly. After all, the government could fund the research directly (and actually it does through DARPA and similar programs). And military spending is one of the key hidden subsidies of the global oil infrastructure. Ie, the US military is a key factor in global oil security. But the cost of that protection isn't reflected at the gas pump. Nor are any potential environmental costs. Here, government spending distorts the market and results in US citizens consuming more oil than they would if the price of oil genuinely reflected the cost of obtaining that oil? We should stop being selfish here, right?

There are huge problems with waste, lazy bastards taking advantage of the system, and administrative incompetence. But to say "I'm paying for services I don't use!" belies a selfish lack of concern for the wellbeing of society and a failure to understand that we live in an interconnected society where the success of someone else affects our success as well. If you feel you could do better on your own, you're welcome to try, but I will say this: there is a reason why no such society exists in our world.

To boil down your argument, yes, government spending is out of control, but those who propose cutting back on government spending are "selfish". Any reduction in spending (no matter how misguided that spending was to start with) will eventually hurt you. Further, since government is everywhere, that's another reason not to try to control government spending. A little dose of fatalism to ward off the obstinate, I suppose.

And we should ignore a bunch of the vast inefficiencies that the US government has introduced into running a business, employing people, having kids, education, healthcare, retirement, etc because there's some minor insurance related benefit? I probably am selfish, but I'm willing to cut back on my consumption of government services and give up a few government-based protections in order to obtain a global reduction in government services and generate a collective benefit to all of US society. Are you? Or is your piece of the action too big to give up?

Finally, let us also recall that once government provides services in a certa

OK, I've been seriously modded down for my post (parent). I tend to not be modded down.

You prove my point here. The military rockets are developed and paid for by the military. Then they're retrofitted (at the public's expense, which is my point) for "non-military" use. Then they're used for a military test (actually two). Your $6 Million figure is probably pretty realistic in terms of the civilian cost -- the total cost of the program was stated in the article.

What I'm getting at is this money is all taxpayer money. It comes from the Feds (military develop and manufacture of Minuteman and Pegasus launch vehicles). It comes from the two states participating in the venture (call it a range if you want, but it did take real military scientists to retrofit the military rockets) to pay for the range (either bought land or leased) the retrofit (those durned scientists again) and to create and maintain the facility. Then their first customer is one that probably could have done the launch themselves with their own range, and that's federal money being poured back into the state operation.

Look, I'm not trying to come off here like some flaming anti-government program nutcase. I believe the government ought to take a role in helping depressed areas get back to work. But this looks like a taxpayer fleece akin to the Bridge to Nowhere, taxpayer money used for development, development and to use the development.

As I said in my parent article, the citizenry of the two states might better benefit from a cash payout to the people living in the depressed area to move to a better area for jobs.

Cripes. By way of comparison, the 13km Confederation Bridge to Prince Edward Island in Canada really did cost $1 Billion CAD (only ~$750M USD then). It was paid for by the government taking the subsidy they were paying to keep the ferry running ($44M/yr CAD), and committing to pay it to the builders for the next 33 years (2032). The rest of the cost was privately funded and paid for by tolls. The ferries served something like 700000 trips per year (now about 1 million thanks to the bridge), PEI has about 138000 people, and it was a constitutional requirement to maintain the ferry service or equivalent (it was a term when PEI joined confederation in the 1870s).

It's, what, maybe 500 metres across the bay, and a 7 minute ride, to get to the airport in Ketchikan? The main bridge is almost the size of a Golden Gate Bridge for a community of about 13000 people (in the whole area). And even if it replaces the ferry, bridges and roads aren't without maintenance costs. It's freaking *insane*.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4720409.stm

"MPs Colin Challen and John Hayes, say building just one mile of motorway costs on average £23m and a mile of dual carriageway £12m."

So, assuming £1 => $2 we get, £23,000,000/mi / 1600m/mi / * 2$/£ => $28750/meter => ~$8700/ft. I think a motorway is a 4 lane divided highway, but not sure. Now, $30 billion for 500 miles is, $30,000,000,000/500mi => $60,000,000/mi => $37500/meter => ~$11363/ft. I don't understand how you get $18500/ft, but this seems realistic. Contruction costs depend on your terrain and other things.

http://www.taxpayer.net/road2ruin/roads/i-69.htm

"1.9 billion ... Critics point to new cost information that indicates the project could cost several times that amount."

And it will cost more than that. ALL costs are up including construction and material especially for oil-intensive operations like road building. The other cost different between Europe and US is the value of the land.

Actually... the conservative way is to give huge tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies so everyone has to ride a freaking mule, instead of giving new technologies a chance to compete. They keep old industries locked in as monopolies and then you complain about gas prices.

I'm tired of these hand-outs, especially when Exxon/Mobil made $10 billion in earnings and became the first public company ever with quarterly sales topping $100 billion. They beat out everyone, including Walmart! The price of gas increases regardless. Then, Congress uses the "ease the pain at the pump" argument to give even more hand-outs! Just look at their proposed legislation:
http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/

Typical ./ reaction, hands wringing, Oh dear, Oh my!

Well, let me be the first then to suggest:

http://www.taxpayer.net/

http://www.taxfoundation.org/

http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/scorecard/i ndex.html

Each spin a different way and I'm sure there's a few dozen more groups out there. One of which is bound to have a message that you agree with.

Ah Fear, what ever happened to Lee Ving anyway?

If this isn't the grossest mismanagement of government funds this side of the Atlantic I don't know what is.

• IRAQ
• http://www.occupationwatch.org/reports/archives/20 05/06/us_mismanagemen.html
  Strategic Missle Defence
  New Orleans

I could go on all day.

Read up at:

• The Institute for Local Self-Reliance
• Taxpayers for Common Sense
• The Union of Concerned Scientists

The article referenced in this Slashdot story is a complete lie, in my opinion. It is certainly possible to do what the article says. However, the cost in energy is greater than the amount of the energy returned.

The situation was the same 50 years ago. There is a huge amount of oil in the shale, but no way has been found to extract the huge amounts of oil efficiently.

The article refers to the "Synfuels debacle". Here's an article about Synfuels called The Great Energy Scam that discusses how scammers take advantage of the lack of technical knowledge of the public. Here's another article: Harsh glare on synfuels hitting home.

In my opinion, this is just another attempt to start a new scam. I think the word farce is too weak. Here's a little about how it works: THE 2005 ENERGY BILL, Helping Corporations, Hurting Western Colorado.

--
Bush lied, many died.

I'm all for lying beneath a wifi blanket wherever I go (who the hell wouldn't be?), but if the system were left in the hands of the gov't, what would be their motivation to explore future upgrades? Being able to set up your web connection sans wires any/everywhere would be quite impressive, but I can really see future infrastructure upgrades being overlooked in favor of other, more boneheaded projects. I'm not being a corporate puppet, I just want to make sure that all the kiddies will be able to download 20 torrents simultaneously whilst watching streamed eps of the tellatubbies, and I just hope that the municipalities can accommodate.

Here's an idea - if the company that manufactures it really believes it's a viable product, let them pay for the research. Why should my tax dollars be wasted on this useless product?

But, hey, don't take my word for it. Look here : http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanol.htm

If the state was able to eliminate spending completely on software, the state IT department's budget would be considerably lessened. In a bureaucracy like the Mass State government, the larger your budget, the more power you have. So when faced with the option of suddenly cutting their budget requirements by a large amount, of course the suits jumped at an offer that allowed them to maintain the prestige of spending massive amounts.

You are talking about local sales tax, which is placed on the consumer, but the industry gets quite a few subsidies, in fact (quick google check), this page claims $USD 5b/year.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies Fact Sheet

$5 billion in subsidies to fossil fuel corporations.

Take, for instance, the massive tax dedeuction that your typically middle-aged, obese suburbanite Hummer owner gets. See http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/whitepapers/SUVtaxbrea k.htm

Consider the extra damage that super heavy SUVs do to the pavement. Consider the high bumpers that are deadly to smaller cars. Not to mention the 10 MPG at a time when US troops arguably are dying for oil.

It is not hyperbole to say that the Hummer is evil.

Then you won't mind if we cut Oil subsidies or Stadium Subsidies.\

Too bad that nuclear power looks a lot cheaper than it is due to the fact that it is heavily subsidized. If we decide to subsidize a non-cost-effective energy generation, why not subsidize something that has fewer hazardous waste products, is more down-scaleable, and less of a magnet for terrorists- like wind or solar power?

It's allways possibly to debate what came first; the tax break or the SUV (as an evolution from the truck and the station wagon)?
I think the SUV would have appeared sooner or later as an evoutionary thing within car industry but it would never had gotten so widespread without the tax break. And the truck segment would have been far far smaller than today.

The tax break is a protectionistic piece of shit mutated far from the original concept without any thought of the consequences, be it environmental, energy policy or foreign policy. If someone where to write a book on how special interest is allowed to corrupt US policy on several areas the SUV tax break case is a perfect example.

And BTW to the root poster that brought up this topic: The tax break is far greater than $4000. According to Taxpayers for common sence it's possible get tax break around $100000. They site an example where a business owner can buy a $110000 Hummer and deduct $106000.

They could be buying it for the tax credit.

It's only about $50000, or $35000 afer Bush's SUV tax break.

If you are an American a decent chunk (>$13Bil) of FEDERAL tax dollars has gone to pay for the "Big Dig" boondoggle in Boston. If you are looking for a reason why the Federal Government should be neutered from anything that isn't Federal in nature, this is it. If you want to know what the future is for a Democratic Party run government, this is it.

I will state the obvious for those who have not actually done scientific research.

The problem now is if we do not see immediate gains then the project should be scrapped. But, this is not the way science works. It actually takes engineering efforts to do real science. Delays and over runs when doing something no one has done before are unforuantely they way things work. The buisnesslike attitude of the government does not like to hear that. They want to know exactly how much something will cost and when it will be done. So, the scientist give their best estimates and then append them when they have more information.

Yes there are wasteful projects and unforunate tragedies but MOST of the time they are wastful because the end result is not useful and there was little technology spinoff. The better-cheaper-faster approach presented by Dan Goldin in the early ninties was wholehartedly praised by most everyone. Using comercial satelite technology, limiting expensive protective measures and minimizing staff were good ideas untill we lost three missions to mars and about the only thing we learned was we cutting corners on space exploration is risky.

Science is expensive. But so is everything else. Osprey V-22, 12B$ so far three years late and still not working but they expec to sink 38B$ for the whole program. NIF, 3.9B$ it violates treaties, two years late and we dont know if it works yet. I could go on.

It is not fair to cut the operating budget of the program and limit the growth of the project and then say there is no science going on. Bush and O'Keefe want a failure so Nasa's measily little budget (~=15B$) can be diverted to tax cuts or absorbed by Defence's everincreasing budget (~=360B$).

Sugar Industry subsidies

Ever checked out the Golden Fleece Awards? Lots of projects that have no use whatsoever, done under the rubric of "pure science", with your money. Typical example: funding a study of behavior and social relationships in a Peruvian brothel to the tune of $97,000.