NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/energy/7111

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 6.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!skadi!stead
From: [e-mail] (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:04:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 110
Nntp-Posting-Host: skadi.css.gov

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Stead) writes:
> 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

Absolutely.  Also, my understanding was that half the federal contribution
to new interstate construction was from DoD (which is funded out of income
tax).  That's why DoD got to dictate design criteria.

> >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

True, and I think the deficit problem needs to be addressed, but not
with gas tax money.  To a certain extent, a somewhat broader directed
gas tax could help with that by bringing political pressure to bear.
If everything people deal with from the government regularly (roads,
parks, things like that somewhat related to driving) was funded
entirely from gas taxes with no deficit, then people would start
to say, 'hey if all this is paid out of may gas tax - what are you using
all my income tax for?'  The politicos would have to start cutting back
on favors to special interests and massive entitlement.  The truth of
the matter is that 50% of the federal budget goes to entitlements,
25% to interest on the debt and everything else comes out of the 25%
remaining - all the real government services, defense, etc.  People
don't realize this to well, but if they were funded from separate pools,
they would most likely begin to understand.  Liberal complaints about
defense spending causing the deficit are hogwash - the entire defense
budget is smaller than the deficit.  We could eliminate defense (not a good
idea) and we'd still have a deficit.  I want people to understand that,
and separate tax pools is one thing that might help.

> It's supposed to read license
> plates on cars as they whip past and monthly bills will be mailed to
> users. Pretty neat.

That's pretty remarkable.  I've heard of a number of automated toll
systems (the company I work for does this kind of work in another division),
but not one that can actually read the plates

> 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

Not entirely.  It is really a subsidy for new development.  I'm sure the
developers in the state back this one all the way.  (Afterall, a 100
year old home on an acre of land has paid for that road in front many times
over, while a townhome complex has lots more road, all of it new and pays
about the same).  It is also a subsidy by the cities to the 'burbs, since
property values are higher in the city (so taxes are higher), while the
long, new roads are in the 'burbs.

> 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.

They must write a lot of tickets.  One officer with a police cruiser and
radar costs about $200,000 a year (salary, benefits, car depreciation,
maintainance and gas, radar depreciation, maintainance and calibration,
distributed cost of officer training, etc.).  If the average ticket is
$100, he'd have to write 2000 a year.  Figuring he spends half his time
in court, then he'd have to write 2 an hour while on patrol.  That's pretty
easy, but to do it constantly must be incredible.  Then again, if that's
all he does, he's probably pretty good at it.

> 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

True. It is a large uncontrolled source.  Most controlled sources are still
much larger (they even slapped emissions controls on bakeries a couple years
back - turns out that nice fresh bread smell is a lot of hydrocarbons).
The article apparently didn't mention natural sources as well.  SCAQMD
already controls natural gas seeps (it has capped a lot of them, and offers
polluters the opportunity to cap some instead of limiting their own
emissions).  Reagan, for example, was right in that trees contibute
hydrocarbons as well (he was wrong in that he claimed they were the single
largest source).  Also, BBQs aren't the largest carcinogen source -
the already controlled gas pump emissions are still the largest, and
tobacco smoke also beats BBQs.  They are a big source nonetheless.

> 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

Denver has the second smogiest air in the nation behind LA.  I don't
know the factors contributing to that, however.  I've never been to Denver.
(People have this clean image of Colorado, but Denver is smogier than
Pittsburg, NYC, DC, etc.)


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
[e-mail]