Note: The issues listed below are in alphabetical order and not by importance. Also, if you click on an issue and do not see the page change, scroll down.
America’s infrastructure is in great need. It is evidenced by our failing power grid, bridge collapses and failure of levees around the nation. Our infrastructure is one of the main keys to our American way and quality of life and to our nation’s economy. A failing infrastructure will only help cause a failing economy. In some cases outdated infrastructure poses a national security threat.
It is time to reinvest in America’s future and infrastructure will be a key. The Modern Whig Party will look at repairing our 20th century era infrastructure as well as prepare and initiate a new 21st century American infrastructure.
We can do this by removing redundant programs and wasteful government spending without raising taxes. More details on this will be outlined in our Renewed American System.
We do need to improve our infrastructure but I have to add that our improvements should not include building nuclear power plants at this time. I cannot support a power generation system that creates "waste" that we cannot get rid of. We should support science that finds other "cleaner" ways of generating power and we should support science that finds a way of neutralizing the waste generated by nuclear plants. I just can't help thinking there's a way to do this.
Our infrastructure must be repaired and updated, that much is not in dispute, but there is no need to limit our ability to do so with the statement that tax increases are out of the question. Taxation rates simply MUST be a secondary priority on this issue, as nothing is more important than public safety.
We have dams going nearly a decade without undergoing their "annual" safety inspections. We have bridges on the brink of collapse. We have power grids that leave citizens in brown-out and black-out conditions during both the hottest and coldest times of the year. Subterranean steam lines in major metropolitan areas burst with tremendous, and often deadly force. Water mains fail and flood neighborhoods, occasionally drowning motorists inside of their cars. These issues MUST be resolved, and they must be resolved post haste. To limit the speed with which we can act on these issues because of tax policy is at best foolish and at worst deadly.
As for nuclear energy, I believe that there should be government support for private energy companies to develop and construct new reactors of the newest, most efficient and safest designs, but especially the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) which operates with extremely small amounts of radioactive and actinide waste products.
There should be some requirement to maintain and update the infrastructure in a responsible and timely fashion, and not allow it to become as it is today.
I would like to suggest an increase in the gas tax to improve our nation's infrastructure. My understanding is that was the original purpose of the gas tax.
Advantages:
1. encourage more fuel efficient vehicles without government mandates
2. would raise a substantial sum of money
3. burden of tax would rest on those who use the roads most
4. heavier vehicles damage the roads more, but also use more gas
5. encourage rail development and use, which is a more efficient method of transportation
6. encourage development of alternative fuels
Disadvantages:
1. burden of tax would dis-proportionally hit low-income, rural communities
Currently the federal government mandates fuel economy standards. I think it would make more sense to abolish the mandates, but impose a tax to encourage efficiency. For this to work would require both gasoline and diesel to be taxed equally.
Wouldn't it actually make more sense to make the gas tax a percentage instead of a fixed amount?
Steve,
I agree with your statements except for not including the building of nuclear power plants. Would you similarly oppose coal power plants? They produce many times the amount of waste as nuclear power plants, and the coal sludge and ash contains many toxic heavy metals.
In terms of the electric power system, for better or worse, the grid will need additional nuclear, coal, and other fossil sources for the foreseeable future. Nuclear power is used normally as base loading capability (cheaper to run and not easy to change output levels) while coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric resources (can be more expensive/energy constrained and can change output quickly) are used during peaking periods.
Getting back onto the topic, nuclear power plants do create waste. However, they create much less waste than coal plants. Also, nuclear plants provide a unique role in the electric grid and are useful for cheap base load generation.
As for the question of neutralizing the waste, you cannot neutralize all of it. However, you can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel rods a number of times before they are no longer effective. Those reprocessed rods can then be reused in a reactor. There is currently only 1 operating reprocessing center (military according to Wikipedia) in the US. We should make fuel rod reprocessing mandatory and subsidize reprocessing, even if it costs more, to reduce the amount of total radioactive waste. Might as well use that fuel, right?
For the waste that is not usable, it should be stored in a secure location. Nuclear plants have been storing used fuel rods and waste at their plants, but we need either a regional or national facility for handling this waste. With all of those plants having spent fuel/waste, it increases the risk of some material falling into the hands on undesirable entities (terrorists, nations, etc.) For the long term, centralized storage would provide the best option even though it is more expensive than letting the waste sit at the plants.
I do not mean to sound like a shill for coal and nuclear interests. I am all for renewables. However, renewables bring their own challenges to the grid. I would be happy to discuss that if someone wishes, but in the interest of keeping on topic, will omit here.
Thanks,
Andrew Slone
The main problem with nuclear waste is NIMBY.
If you're really interested in nuclear, you should look into the thorium cycle.
Twitchy,
NIMBY is a big problem with pretty much all kinds of infrastructure. In the case of Yucca Mountain, ironically, this was a bit unusual. Based on Wikipedia and http://pvtimes.com/news/nye-county-tells-doe-we-want-yucca/ , the Nye county commissioners voted 4-0 to send a letter to the Secretary of Energy saying that they wanted the nuclear repository in Nye County (Yucca Mountain's county in Nevada). Although I will say that most other Nevadans seem to not want it in Nevada, to be fair to both sides.
As for the thorium cycle and the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) in particular, there is still significant research (each project is saying ~20 years for a full size reactor) that needs to be conducted before they can be used at the larger scales of current technology. Let's research it and use it in the future. Finally, even if a viable large scale LFTR design exists, there is a significant regulatory process before one may use that reactor in a real power plant. I'm not arguing against that regulation, but it is a factor in any power plant construction timeline.
If you want to use thorium in reactors, go for it. Thorium has been used before in US nuclear reactors, notably Indian Point 1. They stopped using it because of lackluster results. In those cases, they have to use uranium as a driver for the thorium, so you'll still have uranium in the mix. Also, I really have no problems with using molten salt reactors, but I haven't really seen one that is viable for a power plant.
I doubt that we'll have a lot of nuclear construction in the near future. I would expect there to be a lot more natural gas construction in the near term due to low natural gas prices in the US, recent environmental regulations that are requiring coal to put pollution controls on existing plants, and regulatory hurdles with nuclear.
What are we trying to decide anyways? Whether to have a storage facility for nuclear waste, build conventional nuclear power plants, both, or something else?
Andrew Slone
lcarter,
Who is paying these additional taxes? I could see state taxes being raised for a state-wide project whereas federal funds should be used for interstate projects. I never understood why the federal government should allocate funds towards a single state's project. Shouldn't the state be doing that? Something is wrong there.
In the case of the electric grid, I would argue that it is not as bad as you might believe. Most of the blackouts (I cannot speak for the brownouts, a lot of those are on distribution) happen because of weather related events (storms, hurricanes, snow, etc.) There are actually very few transmission level power blackouts each year (~20-30, including weather events). Power companies work very hard to keep the power on, and you have to admit they are quite successful. Even the big Northeast blackout in 2003 was less than 1 day in length (at the most 2 days) for the most part.
Other than that, your points are completely valid and well-thought out. I would support these points.
Andrew Slone
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer
