Fukushima USA

When I'm not busy being an environmental activist and an unrepentant liberal,I actually attempt to have a life, which I must admit is a whole lot easier to do since I retired out here on the central coast.  Last weekend I was out at one of my favorite wineries, Sculpterra, listening to music from my friend Steve Key, a local music promoter, performer and songwriter who performed a new song which was so completely perfect for what I wanted to write about that I requested and got his permission to include his lyrics in this post.

The song is called Fukushima USA and you can hear him perform it on his Web site by clicking on this link. In the song Steve is referring to the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California which is located not only right on top of a geological fault line, but just 20 miles from the city of San Luis Obisop, here in the wine country.  Here's a bit of the lyrics:

Local wines by the bottle or taste
Pools filled up with nuclear waste
Nowhere to send it, so it’s here to stay In Fukushima USA
The sunshine and the skies so clear
How could anything bad happen here?
That’s what the Japanese used to say Now it’s Fukushima USA

They had reactors built by GE
All the latest technology
A nineteen foot high seawall
Wasn’t much protection at all

But don’t think about that distant land
Things are safer here than in Japan
Relax and sip a little chardonnay
In Fukushima USA

At a time when the rest of the more or less sane world is running away from nuclear power like it was, well radioactive, the United States appears headed in the opposite direction. Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Company to build two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. This represents the first approval of a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in over 30 years.

The one silver lining in the vote was that it was the Chairman of the NRC,Gregory Jaczko , who cast the dissenting vote.  Jaczko said "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened. I believe it requires some type of binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements that are currently projected and currently planned to be made would be made before the operation of the facility." Sounds like common sense to me, too bad the rest of the commission didn't show any.

The timing of this announcement also strikes me as completely out of step.  The Obama administation has just gone through a year of getting beat up about providing loan guarantees to Solyndra, a solar energy company.  And so just when they are being scrutinized about the economics of their energy policy they approve the first nuclear plant in 30 years.  Good gracious, nuclear plants are practically the poster children for cost overruns! They are guaranteed to cost the public exorbitant amounts of money even if there isn't a nuclear accident.  (And by the way nuclear accidents are not exactly cheap. Experts estimate the Fukushima accident will end up costing Japan over $257 billion dollars!).

If you want to see proof of this you need to look no further than this handy little table provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It shows a chart of the cost overruns at nuclear plants to date. The data is not pretty!

Cost Overruns for Nuclear Plants

Year Begun	Number of Plants	Projected Costs(thousands per MW)	Actual Costs (thousands per MW)	Cost Overrun %
1966 to 1967	11	612	1,279	109%
1968 to 1969	26	741	2,180	194%
1970 to 1971	12	829	2,889	248%
1972 to 1973	7	1,220	3,882	218%
1974 to 1975	14	1,263	4,817	281%
1976 to 1977	5	1,630	4,377	169%
Overall Average	13	938	2,959	207%

There is a reason we stopped building nuclear plants and it wasn't the one most people think. It wasn't 3 Mile Island, or nuclear waste disposal, or nuclear accidents, it was the fact that nuclear energy plants proved to be ridiculously expensive. So here we are in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression, at a time when wind and solar energy have never been cheaper, and our government wants to support the development of more nuclear plants?

We have often been very supportive at EB of the progressive energy policies of the Obama administration, but on this one they just got it wrong, very wrong! Nuclear energy is too expensive and we still have no solution on how to handle nuclear waste! Moreover, there should be a complete moratorium on nuclear plants until we fully understand the implications from Fukushima. Now is not the time to build Fukushima USA!

Throwing Good Money After Bad

The above expression has always struck me as a bit esoteric.  Its an expression I have seen and heard a lot and yet the meaning of it never quite seems to fit the words themselves. The best definition I have seen of this expression is as follows:  "To spend more and more money on something that will never be successful."  The best example I have seen lately of this expression comes, not surprisingly, from our friends in the coal industry. 

It seems that Kentucky Power Company, a privately held power company serving the eastern counties of Kentucky has proposed spending $980 million of the public's dollars in order to update its 800 MW Big Sandy Power Plant near Louis, Kentucky in order to meet the recent regulations on air pollution which are finally being enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

We have to admit that this is a good news/bad news type of story. The fact that coal-based utility companies are finally being held accountable for the tons of pollutants they have been putting into the atmosphere is a very good thing.  We are thrilled that the EPA is, at last, being allowed to do their job by the Obama administration given that they were completely hog tied during the administration of George W. Bush, the oilman. Still, nearly a billion dollars spent on a single power plant that will only be marginally less polluting after this is all done?  Isn't this a perfect example of throwing good money after bad, and in this case, a whole lot of good money?

I realize that a billion bucks probably is not what it used to be, but that's one thousand million dollars and that's still a pretty good chunk of change. Why isn't Kentucky spending that money on a renewable energy plant, either wind power or solar power, instead of trying to retrofit an old coal plant that has already seen too much use.  Kentucky has plenty of sun and given the incredible price drop in the cost of solar panels in the last couple of years Kentucky Power could build one heck of good solar power plant or wind farm for what its planning to spend to put lipstick on one very ugly pig! 

Solar has gone through an unprecedented decline in costs in recent years and solar plants are going up all over our country.  One big solar project currently under construction is the Topaz solar project in San Luis Obispo County, California.  This plant will be a 550 megawatt plant and will cost $1.2 billion to construct, only a little less than what Kentucky is proposing to spend just to clean up an already well aged coal plant.  The solar PV plant will put out no pollution, zero, have no significant environmental impact, will not contribute to global warming and will last at least 50 years.  When you look at all energy costs (see Dr. Paul Epstein's recent Harvard study on coal costs) the energy from a solar or wind plant will cost less than the energy from the coal plant. Moreover, solar photovoltaic plants are incredibly straightforward in design and require very few people to maintain them.  The maintenance costs alone would be a fraction of what they would be for a coal plant.   Wouldn't that be a better deal for the people of Kentucky!

The numbers are about the same if Kentucky were to look at building a modern Wind Farm instead of fixing an old coal plant.  Eastern Kentucky has plenty of wind resource.  A large wind farm could easily provide the same amount of electricity at less cost than coal. Costs for modern wind turbines have also gone under significant decline and the current cost of a megawatt of wind energy appears to be just a little over $1 million per megawatt.  That means that for a couple of hundred million less than they are now planning to spend to clean up the old coal plant Kentucky could have a totally non-polluting wind farm that would last much longer than a coal plant and produce the same amount of energy.  Once again, it would put out zero pollution, no contribution to global warming and could move Kentucky into the modern energy era. Once again, a better deal for the people of Kentucky!

There is a saying that there is nothing so powerful as an idea who's time has come.  I would like to believe that is true since renewable energy is definitely an idea who's time has come.  However, it may be the case that it has run up against an even more powerful force, the power of human inertia, the tendency of senseless humans to keep on doing what they have always done even when it no longer makes any sense.  The plans of Kentucky Power strike me as a perfect example of inertia.  They are going forward with spending massive amounts of public money on coal, even when coal no longer makes any sense, either for the people of Kentucky or the people on our planet. 

The time has come to realize that if we are really going to stop global warming we are going to have to do something about coal.  Coal is without a doubt the single biggest contributor to global warming.  It is not enough to build new solar farms and wind farms. If we are going to escape the ravages of a too warm planet, we must eliminate coal from our energy vocabulary.  To do that we have to stop throwing good money after bad and start replacing, not repairing, the thousands of coal-fired energy plants that are killing us and our planet.

True Costs

The last twelve months have been a critical and hopefully enlightening period in the energy world. It has been a period when the true costs of our current energy policies became abundantly clear. Let's take a quick look back at three events that occurred in the last 12 months which should impact our thinking about energy policy:

The Gulf Oil Spill

On April 20th in 2010 the BP oil platform called Deepwater Horizon which was drilling a well at about 5000 feet under the water erupted in a huge explosion which killed 11 men and seriously injured 17 others. Within a couple of days the well platform had melted and collapsed into the ocean. However, a piece of equipment called a blowout preventer which was supposed to cut off the oil flow in the event of a catastrophe such as this failed to work and oil began to spew from the wellhead. The preventer had never been tested at these depths.

For weeks, then months, the world was transfixed by videos showing oil pouring from the wellhead into the ocean. The amount of oil leaking from the well became a topic of much contraversy with BP, for obvious reasons, radically underestimating the true amount of the spill. At a minimum, according to the Department of Energy, the well was probably leaking around 2,600,000 gallons of oil per day and this went on from April until July 15th when the well was finally capped. The spill devastated the gulf fishing industry and covered more than 320 miles of coastline with oil slicks and tar balls. The cost of this spill is impossible to determine. To BP alone the combination of payouts, law suits and stock leases is estimated to be over $50 billion dollars. The impact on gulf fishing and tourism is estimated to be at least $4 to 10 billion dollars. Its hard to put a price tag on the ecological impact of the spill but millions of plants and animals were killed and hundreds of miles of coastline massively impacted.

San Bruno Pipeline Explosion

The 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion occurred at 6:11 p.m. PDT on September 9, 2010, in San Bruno, California, a suburb of San Francisco. The accident occurred when a 30inch diameter steel natural gas pipeline owned by Pacific Gas & Electric exploded in flames in the Crestmoor residential neighborhood 2 mi (3.2 km) west of San Francisco International Airport near Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue. The death toll was eight people. It took more than 200 fire fighters to bring the fire under control. The ensuing fire destroyed more than 38 homes and seriously damaged many others. The fire damage was estimated at in excess of $38 million dollars. PG&E will probably be in court for years to come with law suits.

The Fukishima Nuclear Accident
On March 11, 2011 a devastating earthquake struck northern Japan followed by an even more devastating tsunami. The combination of the two caused massive failures at several of Japan's nuclear plants, particularly the coastal Fukushima nuclear plant. As of this writing four of the plant's nuclear reactors have experienced significant damage. At this time reactor number #3 is leaking significant amounts of highly radioactive water into the ocean and into the atmosphere. The radioactivity has already impacted food supplies in the region and has the potential to spread to huge populations in Tokyo. The Japanese nuclear program is one of the most well established in the world. The plants were built with a knowledge that earthquakes are frequent in the area and Japanese nuclear experts said the plants were built with multiple backup systems and could withstand anything nature could throw at it. The nuclear experts were wrong!

Considering True Costs

At Energy Bible we are constantly working to find accurate data which will allow consumers to make intelligent decisions about energy policy. It is often a frustrating process. Nearly all the data comes from some type of energy lobby and is designed to show that their form of energy, whether it be oil, gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, wind energy, etc. is the cheapest. Probably the most accurate data comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration which has some good charts comparing different types of fuel for home heating, but the data is still pretty limited in scope.

The challenge is that understanding the real costs of energy alternatives is not simply a matter of looking at fuel pricing charts and traditional cost comparisons. Even the best government or industry data on energy costs doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the true costs of our addiction to non-renewable forms of energy. One of the images that has stuck in my mind from the recent nuclear disaster in Japan is from an interview NBC news did of a woman pouring through the rubble of what used to be her home town in Japan. The interviewer asked her what she was most afraid of, and despite the fact she was sitting in the midst of immense devastation, her fear wasn't another earthquake, it wasn't another tsunami, it was the fear of the unseen radiation coming from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

How do we put a price on that kind of fear? How do we put a price on the millions of plants and animals destroyed in the BP oil spill? How do we put a price on the fear of millions of homeowners in California who live near a PG&E gas line? I really have no idea but it seems to me we have to try. We have to find some way to take these things into account when we make practical decisions on energy policy both locally and nationally. We have to look at the true costs of continuing our current dependence on non-renewable energy!

Passion, Politeness and Politics

On Saturday morning (January 8) I was going through my normal morning routine of slowly dragging myself into consciousness with the aid of significant quantities of caffeine, and reading the morning paper. Two things in the paper that morning struck me. First was a quote from a top aide (an ex radio talk show host) to newly elected Representative Allan West of Florida. The aides quote was "If ballots don't work, bullets will". The idea that one of our Representatives would endorse such a point of view was shocking to me.

The news that morning also contained an article about the sad state of affairs in Pakistan where recently the Governor of Punjab, Salmon Taseer, was assassinated for having failed to support the blasphemy laws of Pakistan which basically allow any citizen to accuse another citizen of blasphemy against Allah and then have them summarily executed. What in many ways was even sadder then Taseer's execution was the reaction that followed it. The man who assassinated Taseer, Malik Qadri,, was then treated as a hero by radical Muslims throughout the country and the Pakistani press, in fear for their own lives, refused to counter it.

I think my reaction Saturday morning was probably typical of most Americans. I found the whole state of affairs in Pakistan sad and worrisome, but part of me thought, thank God that can't happen here. I was wrong. It can happen here and is happening here! By now most of you are aware that later that Saturday morning U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge and 17 other people were either killed or wounded by a clearly unstable man named Jared Loughner.

Following the assassination FBI Director Robert Mueller said "hate speech and other inciteful speech" presented a challenge to law enforcement officials, especially when it resulted in "lone wolves" undertaking attacks. He's right! I am constantly shocked by the vehemence and vitriol that is taking place in the media. From Fox News to MSNBC the degree of polarization and viciousness in the media is truly disturbing. We have experienced a little bit of it ourselves in some of the emails we get here at EnergyBible.com.

The primary purpose of our Web site is to inform the public about renewable energy. But we have never shied away from advocacy when we felt it was in the public interest. At times we have been strongly critical of the Republican Party for its positions on global warming and energy policy. At times we have been critical of the Obama administration for its opinions on the use of mythical "clean coal". Whether to the left or right we have always attempted to base our points of view on sound, scientific data and we have always encouraged our viewers to share their views both for and against.

The ability to engage in rational discussion of critical issues is at the heart of all successful societies. That is why the violent act this Saturday is so serious. I have no idea whether this particular gunman had viewpoints on the left or the right. It seems highly likely to me that the guy was just plain nuts. However, in the vast numbers of comments I have seen on the Web and in the traditional media, what no one seems to question is that public opinion in our country has become excessively vitriolic and vicious. So what are we going to do about it! Here are a few simple suggestions:

• Be Polite - There are few things that will do more to stop this nonsense than simply being polite to one another. If you take great care to listen carefully to those around you and avoid insulting anyone when expressing a point of view it will not only go over better but the person might actually listen to you the next time you have something to say.
• Be Truly Informed - Read a newspaper, better yet read several newspapers. Watch PBS and any other non-partisan news show you can find, though admittedly there are not many left. Avoid like the plague on both TV and the Web, Fox News, MSNBC and any other demagogic show masquerading as news. They are not there to inform, they are there to propagandize, and to make a whole lot of money doing it. If you know the opinion of a news source before you ever read it, don't read it!
• Be scientific- I could have said be rational but every crazy demagogue out there from Limbaugh to Beck to Olberman swear they are presenting rationale arguments. So when you can, follow the rules of the scientific method. Create a hypothesis, test it by getting objective opinion from multiple sources who have no stake in the outcome, and challenge all premises.
• Be Calm - Passion has its place, but when trying to develop a point of view on any critical issue, the odds of finding the correct answer are better if you set aside your passion and just try to work through the issue. If you can't avoid being passionate then be passionate about the process of getting the most accurate data from the most sources.

Those are my admittedly passionate recommendations!

Dan Daniel

Editor, EnergyBible.com

Magical Thinking and the Republican Party

Everyone engages in a little magical thinking from time to time. I personally have engaged in a ton of it at times. For example, at one point in my life I constructed a very nice fantasy involving the re-emergence of fairies from the middle ages. They were ever so useful. There was the Coffee Fairy who would bring me fresh coffee every morning. There was the Tax Preparation Fairy who would magically calculate my taxes every year with the outcome always ending up in a big refund. There was the Dishes Fairy who ..... well, you get the idea. Unfortunately, like Linus and the Great Pumpkin, my fairy people never actually did appear and so now, years later, I am still forced to deal with the dreary tasks of every day life.

At least I have the comfort of knowing I am not the only one engaging in magical thinking who has been disappointed. During our recent 2010 elections here in California it became increasingly evident that the Republican Party and its now embraced off-shoot, the Tea Party, are even better at engaging in magical thinking than I am. A recent Pew Poll of Republican Party members released in October found that "A 53%-majority of Republicans say there is no solid evidence the earth is warming. Among Tea Party Republicans, fully 70% say there is no evidence."

What is particularly interesting about this poll is that it actually represents a major retrenchment from polls taken just a few years ago (2007) when only 31% of the Republicans said global warming didn't exist. It seems that in this age of hyper-partisan politics even science is in play. Based on recent comments from the Republican leadership it appears many leading Republicans are approaching it from another perspective. According to John Shimkus of Illinois, God not science should be the source we should be relying on. At a a climate hearing last year he said "The earth will end only when God decides it's time to be over. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.". Shimkus may be right but in the meantime I think I will buy a wet suit because first, I have a hunch God wants us to clean up our own messes, and second, the actual scientific data is pointing in the opposite direction.

I don't claim that scientists are infallible, just that when taken as a very large group they tend to be right most of the time. Currently many of them have begun to change some of their thinking about global warming. Unfortunately, it is not in the direction our friends in the Republican Party would like to see things go. It turns out that scientists are finding that global warming may be much worse than they originally thought. In particular, the antarctic is warming at a rate that is truly alarming.

According to a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey and the British Antarctic Survey the ice shelves in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula appear to be disappearing because of climate change. This summer's loss of ice was much worse than any of the scientists had predicted. "The loss of ice shelves is evidence of the effects of global warming," says USGS scientist and lead author Jane Ferrigno. Since 1998, the ice lost from just one of the five ice shelves in the study totals more than 1,500 square miles, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island.

Its not just the antarctic that is at issue. Global temperatures in the first half of the year were the hottest since records began more than a century ago. Scientists from two leading climate research centres have also recently released what they described as the "best evidence yet" of rising long-term temperatures. Their report looked at 11 different indicators, each one based on between three and seven data sets, dating back to between 1850 and the 1970s. Peter Stott, the head of climate modelling at the UK Met Office, said despite variations between individual years, the evidence was unequivocal: "When you follow those decade-to-decade trends then you see clearly and unmistakably signs of a warming world".

OK so given the most current data the scientists have provided it seems the world is getting warmer. What are we going to do about it? It appears the Republican strategy is not only to deny the problem but to try and make it even worse. This year the California Republican party, egged on by some very wealthy Texas oil millionaires, decided to try and repeal or at least postpone the current California environmental laws (AB32)that could have at least minimized the increase in global warming pollutants. Unfortunately for the Republicans, those wild and crazy California voters rejected this proposition (Proposition 23)and decided to continue fighting global warming.

I am sure this was a big setback for the party in Red, but I think I see their problem. The Republican strategy of magical thinking where they simply imagined all of the scientists were wrong and that global warming would magically go away was simply not enticing enough for the average voter. I mean if you are going to create an imaginary world at least create a really good one. Personally I would suggest that it involve strong doses of Pamela Anderson, a repeal of all taxes, and most importantly, the resurgence of the Coffee Fairy!

Dan Daniel
Editor, EnergyBible.com

The Real Problem with Nuclear Energy

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision which struck down the existing laws limiting contributions from corporations is bound to have some immediate impact. Look for lots of campaign commercials from the Nuclear lobby promoting your friendly neighborhood nuclear power plant (along with continuing absurd commercials about the mythical "clean coal"). The doors are now wide open for big corporate energy interests to campaign and we doubt that they will waste any time beating down our virtual doors. However, it is my fervent hope that the public will think twice about buying the pitch for more nuclear plants. Increasing our use of nuclear energy would be very bad policy, though not necessarily for the reason most citizens think.

When most people think about nuclear energy the first thoughts that come to mind probably have something to do with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, or other glow-in-the-dark scenarios. Nuclear waste also frequently rears its head as a concern given that nuclear waste is dangerous for thousands of years. However, it may be that the biggest thing we should be worrying about (though it doesn't make for a good movie of the week) is the whooshing sound of dollars leaving our wallet, because when looked at carefully it quickly becomes clear that nuclear power plants are just too darn expensive.

An excellent explanation of this provided yesterday by Elliott Negin, the media director for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. in an article that appeared recently on the GreenTechMedia web site. Negrin points out that there have been no new nuclear plants built by utility companies since 1973. The energy companies don't want them because they know how expensive they are. A bit of history is in order. As Negin points out "In the 1960s and 1970s, the industry proposed to build some 200 plants, but as construction costs escalated, only about half were finished. Taxpayers and ratepayers were left footing the bill -- about $300 billion in today's dollars -- for abandoned plants, cost overruns for completed plants, and stranded investments that were higher than the wholesale market price for power. "

The Nuclear lobby has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve the building of 26 new nuclear power plants. The cost of these plants would be extraordinary, probably in the range of $7-9 billion dollars apiece. What makes this a bigger concern is that the nuclear power companies are asking for taxpayers to finance these risky investments despite the fact that prior investments led to hundreds of billions of dollars of loss. The Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the lobbying arm for the nuclear industry has petitioned the commission to provide over $100 billion in loan guarantees so they can build the nuclear plants. Folks, this is not chump change. We are talking Iraq war kind of dollars here. Moreover, we are looking at loan guarantees that the nuclear companies could very easily default on. The GAO, the Government Accountability Office estimates that the risk of the nuclear companies defaulting on these loans is at least 50%. I can't imagine any business guaranteeing loans with a 10% risk, much less 50% risk. This is just bad business!

The argument put forward by the nuclear industry is, of course, that the demand for electricity is growing and nuclear plants do not contribute to global warming. Both arguments are true, but what they are not telling us is that there are far better alternatives for getting the renewable energy we need, lots of alternatives.

Let's start with solar energy, for example. As of January 2010 solar has rapidly emerged as an increasingly competitive way of generating commercial electricity. The current cost of a kilowatt-hour of solar energy is hovering around 19 cents per kilowatt hour which is still a bit above nuclear energy costs. However, the cost of photovoltaic panels has dropped by half in 2009 while at the same time the efficiency of the panels went up. Once commercial electric plants begin incorporating these cheaper panels most experts believe PV electricity costs will drop to around 9-11 cents per kilowatt hour which would make them very competitive if not cheaper than electricity from nuclear power plants.

Solar energy can also be generated using solar heat, particularly if the plant is built somewhere in the southwest US where temperatures are high. Solar thermal plants have become far more efficient as the technology becomes refined. There are many solar thermal plants in development that rival nuclear plants in scale. Many of these plants will also address one limitation of solar energy which is its intermittent nature. Recent breakthroughs in the storage of solar thermal energy using molten salt now allow the solar thermal energy to be stored overnight so that the plants can generate energy 24 hours per. This will make them even more viable alternatives to nuclear power plants.

Wind energy is yet another alternative to nuclear power. Large utility scale wind turbines are being manufactured in increasing numbers and as a result are becoming bigger and more cost effective. Over the last 20 years, the cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80%. In the early 1980s, when the first utility-scale turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Modern wind farms are now producing energy at closer to 4-6cents per kilowatt-hour when you account for the Production Tax Credit. In turn most nuclear power plants are producing energy at somewhere between 11-14 cents per kilowatt-hour when you account for the cost of storing depleted nuclear fuel. Wind farms produce electricity at far less cost and do this without generating any carbon emissions, no radiation risks and without the long-term problem of disposing of nuclear waste. When you look at the whole picture wind energy becomes a no brainer!

Despite these economic hard times are choices for generating cleaner and less expensive energy have never been better. That makes it all the more important that we choose wisely. Give it some thought!

The Clash of Cash for Clunkers

There has been much excitement of late in the press regarding the "Cash for Clunkers" program which has proven so popular that it has run out of money in just a few weeks. From an energy standpoint the program would appear to be a major win all around. Consumers switch from gas guzzlers to high mileage vehicles, the auto industry gets a much needed boost, and the administration can point to at least one set of economic incentives that seems to be capturing the genuine interest of the public. What's not to like?

Actually, I suspect there are a few things not to like. The concept of trading in old low mileage junkers for modern high mileage cars is promising. However, so far, a lot of that promise was wasted. Why? Because the new cars we are helping to subsidize with our taxpayer dollars are often nearly as bad as the cars they started with. With this program one can get a $3500 subsidy for getting a car with only a 1 mile per gallon difference from the old clunker. Now how is that going to have any significant impact on our gas usage in this country? In fact to get a $4500 rebate you only need to do 2 miles per gallon better than your old car. Big whoopee!

If we really want to see this program have a significant impact on gas usage in this country we have to shoot higher than that. What we have right now is really a thinly veiled program for subsidizing the auto industry. That in itself has its merits, though given the fact that our own auto companies don't produce a lot of high mileage cars who we really are subsidizing is the Japanese auto makers. There is no requirement that the trade-in be an American car which I find rather surprising, particularly given the fact that the government owns two of the three major US auto companies. I suspect Japan and Korea could claim protectionism but give the fact that the US government is essentially in the auto business that claim seems a bit thin.

There is also a lot of question in my mind as to what happens to all of those gas guzzling clunkers. The government plan calls for the engines and drives trains to be destroyed though the rest can be used for parts. This makes me wonder if in fact a lot of used car types won't just go get an old engine from the junkyard, one with equally poor mileage, and just replace it. There are a lot of car enthusiasts who would love to revive these old cars which would put us right back were we started from. Hmmm,maybe I am looking on the negative!

OK, so lets look on the positive. The program has run out of money after only a couple of weeks. However, the Democrats are eager to refund it for another $2 billion given that, in their mind, it has been a success. The Republicans of course are opposing it, nothing new there. However, there seems to be some movement within the Republican party to re-vamp the program rather than kill it outright, including requiring higher gas mileage for the trade-ins. This may be one of the very, very few instances where we find ourselves wanting to side with the Republicans.

This program requires some major rethinking. Why not create a sliding scale where nobody gets anything unless there is at least a 10 MPG increase in mileage and only pay above $2000 if there is a 15 MPG improvement. That way buyers will be forced to look at cars with mileage in the 30's and 40's per gallon which will almost surely mean very small cars, hybrids or efficient diesels, all of which would represent an improvement that would actually matter. Also, lets actually junk those cars, all of the car, not just the engine. That way there is less incentive for car enthusiasts to try to salvage the old junkers which frankly we don't want on the road anyway.

If none of these ideas prove politically feasible how about something that would really make a difference. Take the $2 billion dollars and give it to NREL to research building better batteries for electric cars. Then we wouldn't have to worry about MPG ever again!

Editor