I have a column out today. Normally they’re out on Tuesday, but the paper needed to use mine today, so here it is.
http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2008/10/27/Opinion/Environmental.Education.Go.Green.With.Watcha.Got-3506754.shtml
So I broke down the free market economics of nuclear power today. You can read my column at the link, or what I pasted below.
For as long as I can remember, allegedly rational people have been pushing for the most overhyped energy source there is – nuclear power. Just look at Maryland – we’re on the verge of adding a third reactor to our Calvert Cliffs Plant as a way to address our rising energy demand. Nationally, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is on his way to glowing green, as a major part of his energy plan consists of building 45 new nuclear reactors by the year 2030. Where do I begin?
Nuclear power plants take a long time to build. Take the Calvert Cliffs reactor, for instance. Under the best-case scenario, it will be up and running by 2015. Consider that against the fact that Maryland may be experiencing rolling blackouts in 2011. Maybe we should build a time machine while we’re at it?
Imagine trying to build 45 of these by 2030. Assuming we started in 2010, that would be an average of two-and-a-half nuclear reactors every single year. It’d be like trying to write a term paper the night before it’s due and starting at midnight. You’d need very fast fingers, a lot of coffee, divine intervention and … can somebody get me that time machine?
Nuclear plants need to be located near a water source for cooling, and there simply aren’t enough locations in the U.S. that are safe from natural disasters or drought. A few of our reactors are in danger of being shut down because of the water shortages we’ve been facing in the Southeast due to drought.
This ties into another critical problem with nuclear power, which is that the cost of building and operating a nuclear power plant actually increases as you build more plants. You’ve got limited space to put them, and with fewer choices, the bidding for remaining spaces goes up. Cost also rises because the increased demand for uranium, used as nuclear fuel, causes its price to go up. These rising costs would be passed directly on to the consumer’s energy bill, just as we’ve seen happen with coal and natural gas.
It’s a sharp contrast with alternative sources such as solar panels and wind turbines, which get cheaper as you buy more. This is a key reason why in 2007 renewables got $71 billion of private investment, while nuclear got none. Subsidies for nuclear power are now approaching and, in some cases even exceeding, its costs. Guess who pays for those subsidies? The taxpayer; I’m surprised to hear McCain pushing an agenda that requires so much government support.
How much of an impact would 45 new nuclear reactors have? They would supply 1.2 percent of our energy needs in 2030. Oh, and the Calvert Cliffs reactor we’re building is projected to cost between $7.2 and $9.6 billion. Assuming the low end of these projections, the 45 reactors we’re building to meet 1.2 percent of our energy needs will carry construction costs of $270 billion, most of which is going to come from government subsidies.
I always hear politicians talk about supporting an “all of the above” energy policy. Why? That means you’re for all of our good ideas, and all of our bad ideas. How about the smart, cost-effective energy policy with the right priorities? Nuclear should be at the bottom of the list, not the top. McCain’s silver bullet is a blank.
Matt Dernoga is a junior government and politics major. He can be reached at mdernoga@umd.edu.
I just wanted to give an update on some of the activities going on in Maryland with Powervote. For those who don’t know about Powervote, it’s a nationwide campaign being headed up by the Energy Action Coalition. The goal is to get as many youth around the country as possible to sign a pledge to vote for politicians in this election that champion clean energy policies as a solution to our environmental, economic, and national security challenges. Hundreds of schools across the country are participating.
But beyond just getting pledges, we’re holding rallies to make a statement and attract media, holding educational events about issues, and having lobby meetings with our national leaders. Importantly, after the election we’ll have a large base to use to hold people who are elected accountable and make sure they push clean energy and climate change solutions hard.
If you want to read more about Powervote, check out the website Here. I also wrote a column not long ago promoting it Here. The University of Maryland group I’m part of Clean Energy for UMD also got The Diamondback to mention us in a column of their paper Here.
So the pictures I’m including below are from a rally we had on our University Mall promoting Powervote where we constructed wind turbines out of wood and put them in the grass. They actually worked like the should when the wind blew. The 2nd picture was taken after a meeting some of us had with Senator Ben Cardin’s staff where we talked about our Powervote campaign, and discussed Cardin’s positions on the issues we care about(I’m the one with the suit..)
I just had a funny, useless thought. I figured I’d share it. Right now on the news everyone is talking about who Collin Powell will endorse. I really don’t think it matters, but wouldn’t it be hilarious of Colin Powell came out and endorsed someone on the fringe like Bob Barr or Ralph Nader. Or how about whoever is running in the Socialist Party. Everyone would just be like *jaws hit the floor*. I think it would go over well.
So this is pretty amusing, in the Congressional race I worked on during the summer, and where I’m still doing some volunteering this fall, a lot has happened. The big news had really been that there have been 2 new polls out in the past few weeks. One of them had Frank Kratovil and Andy Harris tied at 36-36 with 25% undecided. This one was shocking enough, and then a later poll has Kratovil leading 43-41 with 16% undecided. A few more things seem to be indicating that this will come down to the wire. In the 3rd quarter report of $$ raised, Frank Kratovil outraised Andy Harris. Finally, Andy Harris in one of his own speeches admitted that the race was going to be extremely close based on the internal polls his campaign had been conducting.
So Andy Harris must be pretty desperate, because he just did something pretty silly and stupid. In a campaign commercial which attacked Frank Kratovil, and Harris used footage from a previous campaign commercial from back in the primary that he had used to attack Wayne Gilchrest. So the people in this video are actually referring to someone else when they make criticisms, not Frank Kratovil. A number of bloggers caught this, and the Daily Times posted this story recently exposing it: http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS01/810160408/-1/newsfront2#pluckcomments
Quite frankly, I don’t care that much, but it is pretty stupid. So stupid in fact, that anyone who is undecided should question how someone who puts out a commercial with such a display of limited intelligence should represent their district.
Fail!
So I have a column out today about the ICC and how it’s going to affect transportation funding, as well as general funding around the state. Enjoy!1
My Plan...(or not)
I ordinarily wouldn’t have much to say about Healthcare. However, the topic seemed to be a high point of contest during last night’s debate, and it got me thinking into which candidate’s plan would be more effective, and which would be more expensive. The independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has looked over both candidate’s tax plans which include the healthcare programs. Here’s the link: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf
McCain’s program is estimated to cover 5 million of the uninsured and increase the deficit by 1.3 trillion dollars over 10 years. Obama’s will increase the deficit by 1.6 trillion and cover 34 million uninsured. I consider Obama’s plan under these very simple standards to be far more effective.
However, theres something else you should notice from not only the healthcare plans, but from the tax proposals of both candidates. Both tax plans put us much further into the red. Trillions of dollars further! Interestingly, for all the flack Obama gets about his plan, McCain’s plan actually puts us even further in debt. But, the point is, both tax plans are clearly wrong. Both are bad. Both will increase our debt. I’m not an expert on taxes and on all of our government spending, but I see simple glaring problems with both.
Obama’s middle class tax cut, while it sounds nice and people would like it, just isn’t affordable. All we’re doing is borrowing from our children that way, cause that’s who is paying for that “tax cut”.
It’s easy to see why McCain puts us further in debt than Obama. We’re already greatly increasing our deficit, yet McCain wants to give out more tax cuts to corporations, businesses, etc. It’s hard to fix the budget when all you’re going to do is give out taxes. His solution is to reduce the 18 billion we spend on earmarks? I don’t need to calculator to cry foul. The idea of a spending freeze, while extreme sounds interesting until McCain follows it with “except for this, this, this, and other high priorities”.
So how do you fix our gigantic deficit. A few of my ideas quite frankly are straight-talk that if either if these candidates spoke of, it would NOT go over well. But then again that’s why we’re in the hole that we’re in. Because people can’t stand to make the necessary cuts to bail us out of our problem.
So I know after my rant I should problem go back to my area of expertise, energy and environmental issues. But I’ll embarrass myself further. We can’t afford either Obama’s middle class tax cut, or McCain’s tax cuts for anything and everyone. That’s hundreds of billions of dollars that we DON’T have. Cut Iraq, really at this point, I think we’ve got Iraq in the bag, and certainly a troop draw down in 16 months is plausible. 10 billion a month in Iraq is 120 billion a year. Our economy is in ruin right now, we need that 120 billion here whether you like it or not.
And I can finally jump on stuff I know very well.
Obviously everyone by now knows we spend 700 billion dollars a year on foreign oil. Uhhh, then quit buying SUVS geniuses. But look, people who complain about our economy being tanked by dependence on foreign oil and then burning as much of it as they can are just plain hypocrites who don’t get it, or don’t want to get it. I’m not going to point fingers at anyone who has the car they have, and can’t afford to buy a new one. I’m talking about people who go and buy a new car and buy a Hummer or an F-150, or any SUV. I don’t want their poor choices bringing down my country and our economy.
So say to our automakers “okay we bailed your dumbasses out, now we mandating that you can’t make anymore SUVS or trucks”. 2009 was the last model, too bad for you. Funny thing is, we’d be doing them a favor by solving the problem that get them into their ruin in the first place. So say, from now on, all cars are either 30 mpg or higher, or you’re putting out hybrids. That right there would cut down on the money leaving our economy by billions of dollars within years. These head in the sand companies would also perform better by selling quality fuel economy cars.
Think I’m being crazy? Hell I say take some of that 700 billion dollars for our bailout, and pump it into massive tax credits for hybrids. The whole bailout involving seizing all these assets is socialist anyways, so quit crying foul. I like capitalism too, but since we’re throwing that notion out with the window with the bailout, might as well do it right. Pump billions into tax credits for hybrids and massive overhauls in energy efficiency of buildings. Especially ones owned by all these financial institutions we’re bailing out. This would significantly lower costs to business and consumer, and pump more many back into our economy because of the energy savings.
While you’re at it, impose a carbon tax, and lower the income tax accordingly. Tax what you burn not what you earn.
Okay you know what, explaining a carbon tax takes too long, so thats for another post, so forget I mentioned that. I stand by the rest of my rant. If we want to get serious about our economy, make serious investments and serious overhauls. None of the wimpy bs I’m seeing. Not with these jokes that my candidates call tax plans.
Here’s my column out today, it’s on “clean coal”, namely why such a notion is a complete farce. Both our presidential candidates are talking as though “clean coal” is here now, and mispresenting what it really is, so hopefully this column sheds light on some of that.
Matt Dernoga
Eugene Huskey