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.
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 see that as a definite bonus. People can organize their lives around the price of gas being $2.50 a gallon, instead of having no idea what it will do. Note also that when oil prices drop lower, tax revenue goes up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
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.
Is that the kind of subsidy that solar and wind plants are getting now? I really have no idea. A lot of other industries are being subsidized too, though... so it may not really be anything by comparison.
Another issue I've heard is that whatever agency is responsible for approving wind and solar plants has been really dragging their heels... ie there is a huge backlog of companies wanting to build plants, but they can't get approval. Hopefully that will change soon.
Another thing... read a good article a few months back in National Geographic (I think). To utilize wind and solar efficiently we need to be able transfer the energy anywhere in the country, and the way our grid is currently configured, we can't do that... different parts of the country are not compatible with each other. So that is something else that needs to be addressed.
I see that as a definite bonus.
People can organize their lives around the
price of gas being $2.50 a gallon, ...
$2.50?
People didn't start to re-organize their lives until it hit $4 last time.
Your ceiling should be $125/bbl IMO.
Still, what you see as reasonable, others think is a rip-off.
I'm guessing most Americans would like gasoline around $1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff
To utilize wind and solar efficiently we need to be able transfer the energy anywhere in the country, and the way our grid is currently configured, we can't do that. ...
I'm not sure how big a problem this is.
Utilities currently do a lot of energy trading as it is. When demand is high and capacity is tight in one place, they buy it from other places where there is excess capacity. PNM does this. They buy it from all over the country.
I think that the problem is just that the "pipe" is too small coming from remote areas where wind and solar power are likely to be generated.
In any case, it's just a matter of allocating resources and building it into the cost structure.
I'll hazard another guess that people would rather pay for 7 cents/kWh coal power than 12 cents/kWh solar power. Their "concern for the environment" pretty much ends at their checkbook.
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.
If anyone is interested, the documentary is called 'Saved By the Sun' and can be viewed here: NOVA | Saved By the Sun | PBS
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.
Sorry, but how nicely you word your Taxation to seem like it's the answer. Almost to the point the sheeple of this country would think nothing of it. You can word it how ever you want but it's still Taxation. Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party?
Maybe when we get to a point we're completely off oil then the government can tax everyone who gets free energy. Say putting black boxes on cars to see how many miles they go to tax you per mile? Is taxation ok for you then?
It doesn't matter how you word taxation, it's still never the answer.
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.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to pay more for the alternative energy either. In the example I gave with the guaranteed rate for solar energy, I don't remember whether it was the "going rate", a rate that adjusts proportionally with utility prices [with a guaranteed base], or a rate with a premium. Only that *some* rate was guaranteed. The only way they would really make out to everyone else's detriment is if prevailing rates decreased, which doesn't happen that often with utility rates.
But certainly, if it makes utility rates more expensive, I agree that many people wouldn't go for it. That was one thing PNM did well - they sent the info to customers, stated that the electricity from solar/wind etc. would be about 10% more expensive, and then gave us the choice to opt for any percentage we wanted. My wife and I went with 10%, which we figured raised our electricity bill by about $2/mo. From what I remember, the response to their offer was pretty good. Most Albuquerqueans wanted, and were willing to pay for, energy from sustainable sources.
It doesn't matter how you word taxation, it's still never the answer.
I'd like to point out that the road you make your two-hour one-way daily commute from El Paso to Ruidoso or whatever it is you do is paid for with taxes.
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.
article on solar power & the military
