[peeb]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

People are so short-sighted that they don't realize there are ancillary costs associated with rising gas prices, such as the cost of groceries rising as well, and the cost of transportation for the trucking industry (which is heading for dire straits).

Look, the problem here is that there are costs to automobile use. Dropping the gas tax, or keeping it as low as it is just means that road and bridge maintenance, pollution cleanup, policing etc etc is being subsidized by general taxation. The costs are there regardless of whether you admit to them and pay for them by taxing people who use the services that generate them.

Your argument amounts to "transport is expensive. I'd like the taxpayer to subsidize it."

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The current silly fascination with ethanol is a great example of idiocy run amok.

Agreed - that's just more corporate welfare.

[tie]

Browsing this thread... Why do you guys care about storing energy locally instead of putting it out on the grid? Are you worried about very rural users? (Do they really matter?)

Regarding the gas tax: If gas supplies really are the limiting factor (i.e., if we really believe the story from the car-huggers that we need to drill in ANWR, build more refineries, etc.), then the supply curve is inelastic. Therefore decreasing taxes, shifting the supply curve straight down, will not change the curve much and not change the price at all. The difference will just go straight into the oil companies' profits.
I don't believe this car-hugger story, because demand is also inelastic. But if you give an economist a day to collect the data on the elasticity of supply and demand for gas, he'll give you the answer.

Edit: Googling gives some links, including a blog that made the same argument. It also looks like the elasticity of the supply curve depends on the season. In the summer, demand is higher, and refineries are running at full capacity, so the supply curve is more inelastic than during other seasons. So for the same cost to taxpayers, gas tax relief during the winter is more effective than gas tax relief during the summer.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

Browsing this thread... Why do you guys care about storing energy locally instead of putting it out on the grid? Are you worried about very rural users? (Do they really matter?)

I'll copy and paste from the last page:

'The standard response is "sell it back to the grid." This is actually another form of subsidy I hadn't mentioned, as (at least in some places) the law requires the utilities to buy back power at 2-3x what they're selling it for. I don't like the selling it back idea because it kills one of the best advantages of distributed solar: energy independence. I like the idea of my house being the one with the lights still on during an outage.'

If you're thinking about this as a solution for everyone, 'the grid' is a crutch solution; if passing electrons around could solve the problem without the need for storing that energy for times when the sun wasn't shining, then logically it would also work house-by-house during those times. But it doesn't.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

'The standard response is "sell it back to the grid." This is actually another form of subsidy I hadn't mentioned, as (at least in some places) the law requires the utilities to buy back power at 2-3x what they're selling it for.

This is pretty unusual. Where are you thinking of? Most places are limited to a credit on your bill. Where it is either less than or equal to the retail price there is no issue, where it is more, I don't really see the issue - as more people begin to do this the pricing will even itself out. Net metering is really in its infancy still - the pricing will take a while to get exactly right.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't like the selling it back idea because it kills one of the best advantages of distributed solar: energy independence. I like the idea of my house being the one with the lights still on during an outage.'

Again, this is a very personal reason. The idea of a decentralized grid is something that a lot of people like. Absolute energy independence tends to only appeal to the backwoods survivalist types.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you're thinking about this as a solution for everyone, 'the grid' is a crutch solution; if passing electrons around could solve the problem without the need for storing that energy for times when the sun wasn't shining, then logically it would also work house-by-house during those times. But it doesn't.

That doesn't make any sense. The grid is a great way to use surplus energy - the market will pretty much take care of this if it's set up right. Surplus power can be used to power mass storage, or to charge people's cars, differential pricing based on peak times would make setting washing machines on timers etc much more cost effective. The idea that every house needs to be self sufficient is a weird red herring.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I agree that taking the gas tax off is just a band-aid for a gaping wound. People are so short-sighted that they don't realize there are ancillary costs associated with rising gas prices, such as the cost of groceries rising as well, and the cost of transportation for the trucking industry (which is heading for dire straits). Those who can "afford" it can't see past the end of their noses, because all they see is what it costs them. The current silly fascination with ethanol is a great example of idiocy run amok. We are starting to see the price of wheat shoot up, because farmers make more money planting corn, which is being diverted for ethanol, which is less efficient than gasoline. Lunacy reigns.

Hillary's commercial that just ran claims she's going to take the 'windfall profits of the oil companies' to make gas prices cheaper.

What makes her (or government) entitled to the profits of someone else's work? Because she wants it?

[peeb]

Apart from the fact that there are not actually massive windfall profits, the people have the right to tax corporations at whatever rate they want to.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

'The standard response is "sell it back to the grid." This is actually another form of subsidy I hadn't mentioned, as (at least in some places) the law requires the utilities to buy back power at 2-3x what they're selling it for. I don't like the selling it back idea because it kills one of the best advantages of distributed solar: energy independence. I like the idea of my house being the one with the lights still on during an outage.'

For those of us not stockpiling food for the coming armageddon, though, energy independence isn't really a big deal. Then you give a red herring, a subsidy, that has nothing to do with any possible motivation.

If you're thinking about this as a solution for everyone, 'the grid' is a crutch solution; if passing electrons around could solve the problem without the need for storing that energy for times when the sun wasn't shining, then logically it would also work house-by-house during those times. But it doesn't.

I can't understand what you are saying, and your use of the word "logically" therefore gives me definite pause. Energy demand isn't a constant 24 hours. It is highest during the day when the sun is shining.

The standard response is correct.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

For those of us not stockpiling food for the coming armageddon, though, energy independence isn't really a big deal.

With an ROI time of up to 20 years on pure finances, there has to be some sort of non-monetary benefits/frills in order to make this anything more than a fringe hobby. Having your lights stay on during a power outage is the only one I can think of that's realistic for me. The warm fuzzy feeling of saving the planet is not going to do it, not with a buy-in of 40-80 thousand dollars (if it were then everyone would be driving Tesla Roadsters).

I can't understand what you are saying, and your use of the word "logically" therefore gives me definite pause. Energy demand isn't a constant 24 hours. It is highest during the day when the sun is shining.

Ok follow along here. If I think about just my house, I can (maybe) generate enough power during sunlight hours to power my needs during darkness, but to do that I need to store it up, which takes an ungodly amount of battery capacity. Now, if I think about my whole city, it can (maybe) generate enough power during sunlight hours to power its needs during darkness, but to do that it needs to store it up, which takes an ungodly amount of battery capacity. You can scale up and down on both supply and demand at the same time, but that doesn't solve the storage problem. Get it now?

The standard response is correct.

The standard response is the only one that currently goes anywhere, but the reason so few people have gone and bought solar panels is because it's _not_ a correct answer, most of the time.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is pretty unusual. Where are you thinking of?

Oops I was probably thinking of Germany, unless wikipedia is inaccurate. But as you say, as things move along they will adapt, and since Germany is unquestionably the leader in alternative energy, it's not that much of a stretch to project that our system will mimic theirs in a lot of ways.

The idea that every house needs to be self sufficient is a weird red herring.

No, the problem of making one house self sufficient is a workable model for guessing whether the whole system can be realistic. Battery performance doesn't get better when you scale it up to the size of a whole city, in fact I'd wager they get worse.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Hillary's commercial that just ran claims she's going to take the 'windfall profits of the oil companies' to make gas prices cheaper.

It's typical clueless lefty 'logic' anyhow. The gas companies won't pay any 'windfall tax'- their customers will. Which means..... *drumroll...................*

Right back to higher gas prices- probably higher than before.

If the day ever comes that lefties actually figure out that corporations pass on the expense of their taxes to the consumer the same as any other expense, they'll probably try and present it as if it's some major revelation that everyone else hadn't figured out long ago.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

With an ROI time of up to 20 years on pure finances, there has to be some sort of non-monetary benefits/frills in order to make this anything more than a fringe hobby. Having your lights stay on during a power outage is the only one I can think of that's realistic for me. The warm fuzzy feeling of saving the planet is not going to do it, not with a buy-in of 40-80 thousand dollars (if it were then everyone would be driving Tesla Roadsters).

Ok follow along here. If I think about just my house, I can (maybe) generate enough power during sunlight hours to power my needs during darkness, but to do that I need to store it up, which takes an ungodly amount of battery capacity. Now, if I think about my whole city, it can (maybe) generate enough power during sunlight hours to power its needs during darkness, but to do that it needs to store it up, which takes an ungodly amount of battery capacity. You can scale up and down on both supply and demand at the same time, but that doesn't solve the storage problem. Get it now?

The standard response is the only one that currently goes anywhere, but the reason so few people have gone and bought solar panels is because it's _not_ a correct answer, most of the time.

This is fine. However, your answer only makes sense if you get a warm fuzzy feeling from having your lights stay on during a power outage. (And then why not just buy a generator?) I don't know, I can't argue about warm fuzzy feelings. There is no storage problem if you give up this warm fuzzy feeling and connect to the grid.

CRASH, your post includes just what I despise about McCain and Clinton's proposals. It includes no basic economics. Companies can't just raise prices at will, so they often can't pass taxes onto customers. (If you own a company, try it and see what happens. )

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by tie 

There is no storage problem if you give up this warm fuzzy feeling and connect to the grid.

Then where does the power come from when the sun isn't shining? The same place it comes from now, coal. So what's the point of it all? It doesn't save the consumer money, it doesn't provide the consumer any added utility, it's a big pain in the ass to install, and it doesn't get us off coal. So, what's the point? How is distributed solar any less an exercise in futility than corn-ethanol is?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

CRASH, your post includes just what I despise about McCain and Clinton's proposals. It includes no basic economics. Companies can't just raise prices at will, so they often can't pass taxes onto customers. (If you own a company, try it and see what happens. )

The idea that oil companies can't raise the price of gas is pretty hilarious!

And yes, consumers pay corporate taxes- the expense of taxes to a business is just another thing factored into the cost of producing and selling a product. How anyone could fantasize (and then treat that fantasy as reality) that it's not factored into the price paid by the consumer, is beyond me.

[tie]

Think about it, if oil companies could earn more money by raising the price of gas, then they'd do so right now. Why would they wait for a tax increase? Oil companies aren't charities, they are trying to maximize their profit.

[tie]

Let me explain a little more clearly.

Situation A: Say we have an oil company, and by setting a certain price for gas, it makes $N billion in profit (revenue minus expenses). The oil company is profit maximizing, which means:
(*) for no price level can the oil company make more than $N billion in profit.

Situation B: Now say we have the exact same situation, except a "windfall profits tax" (or whatever you want to call it) of $1 billion is imposed. Your claim is that the oil company will increase prices to earn $(N+1) billion in profit before taxes, so $N billion again in the end. The taxpayers will have gotten $1 billion in tax revenue and paid out $1 billion extra, so will be revenue neutral.
This is wrong! If the oil company could have increased prices to earn $(N+1) billion in profit before the windfall tax, that contradicts (*). In other words, if the oil company could have earned $(N+1) billion in profit before taxes, then what was it doing making only $N billion in Situation A?! This is why I wrote, "the oil companies aren't charities"; if they could pick up an additional billion dollars by increasing prices, you'd better believe that they'd have done it already.

Your mistake is very common---if I knew what it was called, I could probably point you to a Wikipedia article, but I don't. Looking for "fixed costs" in the index of an economics textbook will probably get you a better explanation, though. The goal of companies isn't to balance revenue against expenses, it is to maximize the difference, and I guess this distinction leads to effects that aren't always intuitive to everyone.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Oops I was probably thinking of Germany, unless wikipedia is inaccurate. But as you say, as things move along they will adapt, and since Germany is unquestionably the leader in alternative energy, it's not that much of a stretch to project that our system will mimic theirs in a lot of ways.

On the contrary, I think there is no evidence at all to suggest that the US energy market will mimic Germany's.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, the problem of making one house self sufficient is a workable model for guessing whether the whole system can be realistic. Battery performance doesn't get better when you scale it up to the size of a whole city, in fact I'd wager they get worse.

Nonsense - efficiency of the system does get better when you scale. For a single household you have to store all surplus in batteries. As you scale, the likelihood that someone wants to actually use your surplus without storing it increases.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Tie, you're missing the real Shell-game. Hillary's silly idea counts on people not being able to keep up with which Shell the tax is under.

RIght now, today, this very minute- oil costs you the extra tax levied by the government. YOU, the consumer, pays for it at the pump. The government and the oil companies both know you and everyone else will pay the tax- you already do.

Claiming to remove the tax, then claiming to take the difference out of oil company "windfall" profits, is the SAME thing, just the tax collection point will be changed ever so slightly.

The bottom line: government wants a percentage of tax per gallon of gas. They'll get it from the consumer, no matter what, weather it's directly at the pump (as now), or added to the price by the oil company (see above: they already know you'll pay it- you DO RIGHT NOW) to then cover the expense of the government taking the same amount from them. It'd be little more than an added sales tax scheme. Businesses don't eat sales taxes as a practice- you pay them, and you'd pay this one too.

People don't go to the pump and say to themselves- I'm willing to pay the government an extra 19cents per gallon- but I won't pay the government indirectly through the oil company the same 19 cents!

Bullshit! You'll pay the extra tax no matter where it gets collected.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

With an ROI time of up to 20 years on pure finances, there has to be some sort of non-monetary benefits/frills in order to make this anything more than a fringe hobby.

This was debunked upstream - the ROI is competitive with carbon or better once you take out the subsidies.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Having your lights stay on during a power outage is the only one I can think of that's realistic for me.

Cheaper doesn't do it for you?