Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep hearing people say they "need" it for safety, but that's generally
because there are so many other 6,000lb vehicles on the road.
I would say it is *totally* because of all the other large vehicles. We'd be a lot safer if these behemoths were restricted and we were driving ultra-light vehicles instead.
Quote:
The price of gasoline should never have been allowed to drop below $4 last year.
A floor tax on the price of oil would get my vote...
Just to clarify--New Mexico is VERY rich in terms of the solar radiation we receive on an annual basis. We get 300+ sunny days per year. Germany, the world's leader in terms of solar implementation, doesn't receive nearly as many sunny days nor comes close to approaching the 1000 Watts/m^2 solar insolation (Intensity) that we experience (and sometimes surpass) on a daily basis. However, we DO lack the necessary legislation and subsidies that Germany has pushed through to tap solar as a profitable resource.
This is an important point, and also a very valid one. Most people wonder how cloudy Germany be such a huge producer/user of solar power. Simple - the German gov't created the financial incentive and the rest is history.
As I understand it, they guaranteed investors in solar energy a fixed rate on the electricity they generated, for a period of time [10 yrs I believe]. Pretty soon there were farmers/large landowners making the capital investment to put solar collectors on as much as half of their land. Some of these projects have 10-15 yr. return-of-capital projections, after which these farmers/entrepreneurs will be able to continue selling their excess power over the grid.
Just think of the effect a similar incentive could have in NM, with the abundant sunshine? Not to mention the effect of indirectly decentralizing the power generation industry, and creating some real competition.
And you'd be the first to ***** about how much everything else rose in price due the added expense in shipping costs.
No I wouldn't. How's that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by danieloneil01
... Taxation is always the answer to our problems ...
It's the answer to our petroleum importation "problem."
Quote:
Originally Posted by danieloneil01
... lets just tax the hell out of everything and maybe everyone will be so broke they can't buy a damn thing.
Good one. Let's make murder legal too.
It would be helpful if you could contribute to the discussion with well-reasoned posts on why there should NOT be an additional tax on gasoline/petroleum. Resorting so such hyperbole indicates you haven't actually got any ideas to contribute.
... German gov't created the financial incentive ...
... Just think of the effect a similar incentive could have in NM, ...
I'm all for it, but do you think ratepayers would be willing to tolerate
paying 11 cents or so per kWh for a portion of their power?
Most of the stuff that I read about residential power consumers is that people
think they are "entitled" to a low utility bill regardless of their consumption.
I guess the Germans bury the cost in their national budget, but it still amounts
to a rate increase.
It makes more sense to pay for such financial incentives via utility rates since
that's what we would be doing; making power generation more costly.
Yes, because Taxation is always the answer to our problems and not the problem.
A floor tax on oil would maintain the price say at $70/bl wholesale... or above if the market price was higher than $70. What this would do is allow companies to invest in technology that can compete with oil at that price. The way things are now, it is extremely risky to invest in new technology, because at any time OPEC can open the spigots and send the price of oil down to $25 again and all this new stuff will be bankrupt.
A floor tax creates stability in the energy sector, encourages conservation, reduces our dependence on imports, and promotes research and investment in new energy technology. I can't think of any down sides.
I guess the Germans bury the cost in their national budget, but it still amounts to a rate increase.
It makes more sense to pay for such financial incentives via utility rates since
that's what we would be doing; making power generation more costly.
I think the idea was primarily about providing the needed market stability to smaller players, so that they'd make the investment. Larger utilities have far more money to throw around and take "chances" with than, say, a pig farmer. The documentary I saw actually featured a pig farmer who had, because of the governments guarantee of stability, converted half his land to solar power generation. Once the investment was paid off, he was going to use the energy sold to the grid to finance his retirement.
As far as the rate increase, it depends whether you're talking short-term or long-term. IMO the German government's move was a pretty good one, long-term. Think oil/energy prices in 20 yrs. Think sustainable, domestic energy production.
There is always a down side. The question is what is worse?
The down side is that consumers won't be able to benefit from
short-term lower prices. People who have structured their lives
around cheap gasoline by driving vehicles with poor fuel efficiency
and living far away from where they work/shop will be harmed
when prices are forced back up via taxes.
I can make a lot more arguments about why forcing the price high
is better in the long run, but I can't say it's 100% good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Rankin
... providing the needed market stability to smaller players,
so that they'd make the investment. ... Think oil/energy
prices in 20 yrs. Think sustainable, domestic energy
production.
You're preaching to the choir.
I'm just saying that that market stability and diversification of energy
sources costs money and people like danieloneil01 really want to be
able to afford to use energy in a profligate manner.
Say we agree to subsidize wind/solar/geothermal/pig poop power so that
such power entering the grid gets 25% more than the going rate and we
agree to do that until such power is 20% of total power generation.
That would tend to raise rates by about 5% overall. That kind of rate
increase is lost in the noise of fluctuations in prices of coal/oil/gas, but
most people, I'm afraid, won't be for such subsidies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
