Energy thread

[Texsox]

Those plants are many times over more efficient at producing energy than gas-engine cars though, so its still a significant net drop in energy. Plus, you are assuming these will all be pure plug-in powered electrics. They will also, I'd guess, employ regenerative braking and other internal electrical regeneration methods, which are basically "free".

Absolutely, it also seems easier to keep one power plant running at peak efficiency and with peak environmental controls than thousands of cars. I just see people call them non-polluting in other venues and we forget that electricity needs to be generated somehow.

 

The infrastructure that SS mentioned is also key. It seems daunting to place cords everywhere, but imagine if we were switching to gas and needed all the gas stations we have now. On many street corners there are three or four.

 

What I see instead of some technology that will charge "fill" in five minutes, is smaller, lighter, power sources that could be swapped out like propane tanks. At least here, more people just trade tanks at our local convienence stores than have our own tanks filled.

[StrangeSox]

Absolutely, it also seems easier to keep one power plant running at peak efficiency and with peak environmental controls than thousands of cars. I just see people call them non-polluting in other venues and we forget that electricity needs to be generated somehow.

 

Go nuclear and you're only left with a small amount of radioactive waste which can be reprocessed and stored.

 

What I see instead of some technology that will charge "fill" in five minutes, is smaller, lighter, power sources that could be swapped out like propane tanks. At least here, more people just trade tanks at our local convienence stores than have our own tanks filled.

 

 

That's much more realistic than some form of rapid charging.

Edited March 11, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Go nuclear and you're only left with a small amount of radioactive waste which can be reprocessed and stored.

Go solar/wind/geo/hydro/hydrogen and you have no waste whatsoever, not to mention much lower risks to public health and a lot less expense to run.

 

[Texsox]

That's much more realistic than some form of rapid charging.

I was looking at the power connector on my son's Mac, the magnetic style and thinking that could work. Really fast connection so you could "fill up" in under five minutes. However the easier and more convenient you make the system, the easier it would be for someone to steal (siphon your "gas")

[Texsox]

Go solar/wind/geo/hydro/hydrogen and you have no waste whatsoever, not to mention much lower risks to public health and a lot less expense to run.

 

or wave and a couple more. There are trade offs. Some of the best areas to generate that electricity is also some of the most beautiful. That needs to be balanced also.

[southsider2k5]

So would changing the currency of trade of oil to the Euro stop the rapid increase in oil cost?

 

No it wouldn't. We would still need to buy Euros with a weakening dollar to buy them, so the dollar slide would still hurt us.

[Balta1701]

Anyone know if the taxes on fuel are percentages or exact cost per gallon? Perhaps consumers should be talking to our elected representatives to lower them taxes.

Of course, economically, this is a terrible idea. If you have a commodity that is only available in a limited amount, and you lower the price of it, then all that is going to happen is you're going to watch demand try to surge to make up for the price decrease, and things will come right back in to balance. So you might lower prices by a few tens of cents initially, but they'd go right back up as people bought more, and all that would happen would be that the Saudis would make more money on each barrel while the governments in the U.S. would make less. And then your property taxes would have to go up, or your sales taxes would double, or something like that.

[StrangeSox]

Of course, economically, this is a terrible idea. If you have a commodity that is only available in a limited amount, and you lower the price of it, then all that is going to happen is you're going to watch demand try to surge to make up for the price decrease, and things will come right back in to balance. So you might lower prices by a few tens of cents initially, but they'd go right back up as people bought more, and all that would happen would be that the Saudis would make more money on each barrel while the governments in the U.S. would make less. And then your property taxes would have to go up, or your sales taxes would double, or something like that.

 

That's pretty accurate. In one of the econ classes I took last spring, the professor went over this example and showed how lowering the taxes won't save the consumer anything up front and will cost them (through higher taxes or decreased service) later on. The market has already set the acceptable price given demand. If you take out .30 in taxes, you're just increasing their profits .30. The price of gasoline won't really move and the only ones benefiting will be the oil companies.

[kapkomet]

That's pretty accurate. In one of the econ classes I took last spring, the professor went over this example and showed how lowering the taxes won't save the consumer anything up front and will cost them (through higher taxes or decreased service) later on. The market has already set the acceptable price given demand. If you take out .30 in taxes, you're just increasing their profits .30. The price of gasoline won't really move and the only ones benefiting will be the oil companies.

Did your economics professor explain pricing and supply and demand and how it doesn't get set by the oil companies? Now yes, they benefit, but they don't set the prices. Just want to clarify the point, is all.

 

[southsider2k5]

Of course, economically, this is a terrible idea. If you have a commodity that is only available in a limited amount, and you lower the price of it, then all that is going to happen is you're going to watch demand try to surge to make up for the price decrease, and things will come right back in to balance. So you might lower prices by a few tens of cents initially, but they'd go right back up as people bought more, and all that would happen would be that the Saudis would make more money on each barrel while the governments in the U.S. would make less. And then your property taxes would have to go up, or your sales taxes would double, or something like that.

 

Which is also why price ceilings always fail as well. If you want a great example of this in real life, look at the economy of Zimbabwe.

[Texsox]

Of course, economically, this is a terrible idea. If you have a commodity that is only available in a limited amount, and you lower the price of it, then all that is going to happen is you're going to watch demand try to surge to make up for the price decrease, and things will come right back in to balance. So you might lower prices by a few tens of cents initially, but they'd go right back up as people bought more, and all that would happen would be that the Saudis would make more money on each barrel while the governments in the U.S. would make less. And then your property taxes would have to go up, or your sales taxes would double, or something like that.

 

Except we already have a variable tax on gas. There are city, county, state, and federal taxes. For your statement to be true, the sales tax on gas would have to be the same nationwide which it isn't.

[StrangeSox]

Did your economics professor explain pricing and supply and demand and how it doesn't get set by the oil companies? Now yes, they benefit, but they don't set the prices. Just want to clarify the point, is all.

 

Right, sorry if that wasn't clear. The market has set gasoline at $3.25 a gallon today. People are going to pay that regardless of whether or not .30 of that goes to the government.

[Texsox]

Right, sorry if that wasn't clear. The market has set gasoline at $3.25 a gallon today. People are going to pay that regardless of whether or not .30 of that goes to the government.

 

Sorry, but it is $3.05 here. So I guess we'll be buying more.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/31500.html

GASOLINE TAX FOLLIES

 

SYNOPSIS: Ending a gas tax is subsidizing OPEC. It solves nothing for Americans

 

Teachers of economics cherish bad policies. For example, if New York ever ends rent control, we will lose a prime example of what happens when you try to defy the law of supply and demand. And so we should always be thankful when an important politician makes a really bad policy proposal.

 

Last week George W. Bush graciously obliged, by advocating a reduction in gasoline taxes to offset the current spike in prices. This proposal is a perfect illustration of why we need economic analysis to figure out the true "incidence" of taxes: the people who really pay for a tax increase, or benefit from a tax cut, are often not those who literally fork over the cash. In this case, cutting gasoline taxes would do little if anything to reduce the price motorists pay at the pump. It would, however, provide a windfall both to U.S. oil refiners and to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

 

Let's start with why the oil cartel should love this proposal. Put yourself in the position of an OPEC minister: What sets the limits to how high you want to push oil prices? The answer is that you are afraid that too high a price will lead people to use less gasoline, heating oil and so on, cutting into your exports. Suppose, however, that you can count on the U.S. government to reduce gasoline taxes whenever the price of crude oil rises. Then Americans are less likely to reduce their oil consumption if you conspire to drive prices up -- which makes such a conspiracy a considerably more attractive proposition.

 

Anyway, in the short run -- and what we have right now is a short-run gasoline shortage -- cutting gas taxes probably won't even temporarily reduce prices at the pump. The quantity of oil available for U.S. consumption over the near future is pretty much a fixed number: the inventories on hand plus the supplies already en route from the Middle East. Even if OPEC increases its output next month, supplies are likely to be limited for a couple more months. The rising price of gasoline to consumers is in effect the market's way of rationing that limited supply of oil.

 

Now suppose that we were to cut gasoline taxes. If the price of gas at the pump were to fall, motorists would buy more gas. But there isn't any more gas, so the price at the pump, inclusive of the lowered tax, would quickly be bid right back up to the pre-tax-cut level. And that means that any cut in taxes would show up not in a lower price at the pump, but in a higher price paid to distributors. In other words, the benefits of the tax cut would flow not to consumers but to other parties, mainly the domestic oil refining industry. (As the textbooks will tell you, reducing the tax rate on an inelastically supplied good benefits the sellers, not the buyers.)

 

A cynic might suggest that that is the point. But I'd rather think that Mr. Bush isn't deliberately trying to throw his friends in the oil industry a few extra billions; I prefer to believe that the candidate, or whichever adviser decided to make gasoline taxes an issue, was playing a political rather than a financial game.

 

There still remains the argument that the only good tax is a dead tax. This leads us into the whole question of whether those huge federal surplus projections are realistic (they aren't), whether the budget is loaded with fat (it isn't), and so on. But anyway, the gasoline tax is dedicated revenue, used for maintaining and improving the nation's highways. This is one case in which a tax cut would lead directly to cutbacks in a necessary and popular government service.

 

You could say that I am making too much of a mere political gambit. Gasoline prices have increased more than 50 cents per gallon over the past year; Mr. Bush only proposes rolling back 1993's 4.3-cent tax increase.

 

But the gas tax proposal is nonetheless revealing. Mr. Bush numbers some of the world's leading experts on tax incidence among his advisers. I cannot believe that they think cutting gasoline taxes is a good economic policy in the face of an OPEC power play. So this suggests a certain degree of cynical political opportunism. (I'm shocked, shocked!) And it also illustrates the candidate's attachment to a sort of knee-jerk conservatism, according to which tax cuts are the answer to every problem.

 

As a citizen, then, I deplore this proposal. As a college lecturer, however, I am delighted.

 

Originally published in The New York Times, 3.15.00

Edited March 11, 2008 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/31500.html

Over the long term, that is correct. I agree with your general point about lowering taxes will do nothing but get built in for pricing down the road.

 

[Cknolls]

Random thoughts.

 

Something I learned from the concrete industry that carries over to oil. We're using both faster than the earth can resupply. Therefor, the folks that own cement and oil, own as much as they ever will. It is just a matter of how fast they want to sell it. Why bust your ass in production just to lower prices? Work 8-5 M-F and not worry about it.

 

Electric cars move the point of pollution from the cars to the electric plant. I know no one was touting the environmental impact but wanted to toss it out there.

 

Anyone know if the taxes on fuel are percentages or exact cost per gallon? Perhaps consumers should be talking to our elected representatives to lower them taxes.

 

Well lucky people here in Illinois get to pay both taxes.

[Balta1701]

Link.

The number of Americans hopping buses and grabbing subway straps has climbed to the highest level in half a century as soaring gasoline costs push more commuters to take mass transit.

 

U.S. mass transit ridership began to surge when gasoline hit the $3 a gallon level in 2005 and has continued to rise steadily ever since as pump prices top record after record, according to a report released on Monday by the American Public Transit Association.

 

"As people are struggling with the increase in fuel prices, they have to make adjustments, and one of the ways they are doing that is driving less and taking public transportation more," said William Millar, the president of the APTA.

 

Mass transit use increased by more than 2 percent in 2007 to the highest level in 50 years, with Americans taking more than 10 billion trips on public transport while the number of vehicle miles traveled was flat in the first 10 months of the year.

 

Even when gasoline prices dipped last year and some people returned to driving, others appear to have switched to public transport permanently, according to Millar.

As the blog I stole this item from notes...mass transit is hitting a record usage amount, while in the meantime the federal government is spending $40 on roads for every $1 spent on any sort of mass transit.

[WilliamTell]

This is all the trasnportation I need. I'm going to be riding it this summer for work. It's about a 6 mile ride round trip so that's not too bad. I love my bike, haha.

 

[Texsox]

So what we need is to increase taxes on gas so they can't raise our prices too much. Perhaps slap a $1.00 per gallon tax on and what OPEC drop prices like a rock?

[Balta1701]

So what we need is to increase taxes on gas so they can't raise our prices too much. Perhaps slap a $1.00 per gallon tax on and what OPEC drop prices like a rock?

What that would be likely to do is drive U.S. gas demand sharply downwards...so hypothetically, that would drive the price of a barrel of oil downwards...but the problem is, we're up against a monopoly, so they'd simply cut production to make up the difference, thus keeping the price of oil high.

 

Of course, there may be other benefits to that sort of tax (i.e. significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions ) worth thinking about in the process as well.

[Texsox]

What that would be likely to do is drive U.S. gas demand sharply downwards...so hypothetically, that would drive the price of a barrel of oil downwards...but the problem is, we're up against a monopoly, so they'd simply cut production to make up the difference, thus keeping the price of oil high.

 

Of course, there may be other benefits to that sort of tax (i.e. significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions ) worth thinking about in the process as well.

 

So we magically have the perfect tax level on fuel, not too high and not too low.

/faints

[Balta1701]

So we magically have the perfect tax level on fuel, not too high and not too low.

/faints

Actually, I for one would argue that it is too low. But there is sort of an artificial equilibrium that will establish itself no matter what tax rate you set that will hold the price the consumer pays roughly constant. If you raise the gas tax, then the price of oil drops somewhat as demand drops, bringing the price at the pump back to where it currently is. If you lower the gas tax, the price of oil will go up as demand increases. I'd argue that the drop in demand associated with an increase is desirable on its own, but that's sort of how the market works. There's a feedback either way that is going to push the system back towards the current point.

[Texsox]

Actually, I for one would argue that it is too low. But there is sort of an artificial equilibrium that will establish itself no matter what tax rate you set that will hold the price the consumer pays roughly constant. If you raise the gas tax, then the price of oil drops somewhat as demand drops, bringing the price at the pump back to where it currently is. If you lower the gas tax, the price of oil will go up as demand increases. I'd argue that the drop in demand associated with an increase is desirable on its own, but that's sort of how the market works. There's a feedback either way that is going to push the system back towards the current point.

Constant? Then why are gas prices ranging, today, in the US, from under $3 to over $3.50?

 

I paid $3.05 today, I imagine your price is higher. The taxes are different in every city in America. So what you are saying is if California lowers their tax on gas, people in Mississippi will be paying more for gas? So if Mississippi raises their tax, then California will pay less?

 

So looking at the current prices across the nation, http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx

[southsider2k5]

What that would be likely to do is drive U.S. gas demand sharply downwards...so hypothetically, that would drive the price of a barrel of oil downwards...but the problem is, we're up against a monopoly, so they'd simply cut production to make up the difference, thus keeping the price of oil high.

 

Of course, there may be other benefits to that sort of tax (i.e. significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions ) worth thinking about in the process as well.

 

Like the last two dollars per gallon increases have sharply driven demand down for gasoline? Gasoline doesn't behave like a normal commodity. It has an elasticity of near zero. People buy it, almost no matter what.

[Texsox]

They have to get to work, shop, take the kids to baseball practice, and hookers have to drive to the Mayflower to meet the Governor . . .

 

If I was living in an area that was paying $.60 more per gallon than other areas of the country, I'd be pushing for a temporary reduction in the taxes.