Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[mhaze]

I think there is one "Green" idea that's going to slip in like a fart to the Tea Party's blissful idyl. It will blast their asses to things green and sensible. That is the 'smart car' and the 'smart road'.

Cars are getting 'smart' in that they have "Tom Tom" road map service either inbuilt or a little dashboard box, collision prevention built in on high end models, All Star, and in the extreme, driverless cars. Tea Baggers are grabbing these smart cars as they are status symbols with hidden "green" under the sheen.

True "Smart Roads" are in the future. Right now, you can tune in on the radio and recieve real time traffic reports telling you which way has less congestion brought to you by cameras pointed at the traffic. Cameras also catch speeders and irratic drivers.

Real smart road tech can be found on the on ramp to a freeway. That green light knows how many cars passed, and the correct number to allow at each green. This cuts congestion.

Looks like you'd lay claim as "Green" to most anything that worked. Next you'd be claiming the GPS system in the sky was a "green concept" - Hint, it wasn't. And smart roads and cars have been a stable of science fiction and government studies long, long before the twisted, perverse world of AlGore.

 

[mhaze]

As for now, solar for large applications is expensive I agree with you. Solar for small applications (such as night lights or street lights) are cost-effective. That street light in your parking lot you gotta pay for, if it has a solar panel, it's small to maybe bigger than a pizza, just provides enough for that light and cuts most of your cost to run that light. .....

Actually, nope. Go check out typical lumens for streetlights. I'm running a number of outside landscaping lights, 14 watt and probably equal to about 150 watt incandescent. Street lights are an order of magnitude higher in required lumen output, so that's a fair sized collector and battery. That's why typical LED street lights DON'T have batteries and solar collectors....

The error you made was to compare tradtional street light HID or mercury vapor or sodium (by the way these are already highly efficient compared to incandescent), with a LED/Battery/collector. The correct comparison for costing purposes is

• traditional vs.
• LED/Batter/collector vs.
• LED line powered

Even so, businesses such as FedEx is biting the hybrid bullet.

Obviously you didn't understand my point. In the absence of government tax credit subsidy and ridiculous propaganda bout the virtues of hybrids, they would ONLY be used for applications where any first year engineering student could see they would be cost effective - and in city delivery trucks is such an example.

So you've got inefficiency, due to government distorting market forces.

A driver of a hybrid who was giving me a ride said this: "When we go down to Phoenix, we only have to pay one way. The car runs electric down hill to Phoenix, than uses gas to climb back up to Prescott." So from that anecdotal evidence I got that if you drive downhill on a freeway for 100 miles, your coasting electric. Gas comes in for climbing the return 100. Regular cars making the trip pay for 200 miles of gas. That is probably what you are seeing in your travels.

Cannot provide link to spoken word.

And Prius does run out of juice sometimes going up a very long hill. And where I'm talking about seeing Priuses (and the drivers who wasted money on them) is flat land, Texas.

There is nothing other than poor decision making/or status symbol factors when buying a Prius and the expected highway use is 60-80% of total miles. It'll be interesting to see after a couple years how Prius cabs fare. Perfect application for hybrid, but Prius is too lightweight for that job...or so it would seem.

 

[Dymanic]

So you've got inefficiency, due to government distorting market forces.

Nearly spewed coffee on that one.

You want to take a real look at how government subsidies have distorted market forces in the energy sector over the last few decades? (I mean, as if we haven't done that before). What do you think the petroleum industry would be today if not for government tax credit subsidies? You think nuclear power is a go in the US on private money alone? Why shouldn't it be, it being so efficient and all?

This isn't some Libertopia, it's the real world -- and in the real world, governments do distort market forces. It's just a question of who benefits, and over what time frame.

 

[WildCat]

Nearly spewed coffee on that one.

You want to take a real look at how government subsidies have distorted market forces in the energy sector over the last few decades? (I mean, as if we haven't done that before). What do you think the petroleum industry would be today if not for government tax credit subsidies?

What tax subsidies does petroleum get that similar industries don't? Do they gat actual cash payments like ethanol does? Like wind does?

You think nuclear power is a go in the US on private money alone? Why shouldn't it be, it being so efficient and all?

Describe the nuclear subsidies you talk about. Loan guarantees? They still have to be paid back. Plus they aren't a subsidy so much as insurance against funding drying up because investors are spooked by the endless streams of lawsuits and delays also made possible by government actions.

This isn't some Libertopia, it's the real world -- and in the real world, governments do distort market forces. It's just a question of who benefits, and over what time frame.

And in this real world, nuclear is still the cheapest way to generate electricity. It's pretty damned green too.

 

[Dymanic]

What tax subsidies does petroleum get that similar industries don't?

We've done this before.

"According to the most recent study (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6792/10-18-Tax.pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Do they gat actual cash payments like ethanol does? Like wind does?

Yes. Between 2002 and 2008, direct spending on traditional fossil fuels was $16.3 billion, compared with $6 billion for traditional renewables, and $5 billion for corn ethanol.
http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

Describe the nuclear subsidies you talk about. Loan guarantees? They still have to be paid back.

How does one go about paying back a loan guarantee? Can you spot the logic fail?

 

[mhaze]

Nearly spewed coffee on that one.

You want to take a real look at how government subsidies have distorted market forces in the energy sector over the last few decades? (I mean, as if we haven't done that before). What do you think the petroleum industry would be today if not for government tax credit subsidies? You think nuclear power is a go in the US on private money alone? Why shouldn't it be, it being so efficient and all?

This isn't some Libertopia, it's the real world -- and in the real world, governments do distort market forces. It's just a question of who benefits, and over what time frame.

That stands as one of the most ridiculous responses yet. Here is why.

We have a discussion over the use of hybrid cars. I point out where, and where not, they are advantageous. I then point out why they are not a good idea for primary highway use. Further that this is due to propaganda and status issues related to "green". eg..."market inefficiencies due to government..."

YOU come in with some blather about what, exactly?

WHAT does that have to do with efficient or practical use of hybrid cars? N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

 

[Ziggurat]

What tax subsidies does petroleum get that similar industries don't?

They get to write off a large portion of certain "capital investments" as expenses. But since those "capital investments" cannot be recovered or resold, they should be treated like expenses, and every other business gets to write off expenses.

Do they gat actual cash payments like ethanol does? Like wind does?

Of course not, but they're the good guys, so that doesn't count. Or something.

Describe the nuclear subsidies you talk about. Loan guarantees? They still have to be paid back.

Unless they go under like Solyndra. But we haven't really had a problem with nuclear power companies going under.

And in this real world, nuclear is still the cheapest way to generate electricity. It's pretty damned green too.

And many of the green alternatives are simply unreliable, so dollar-per-watt cost doesn't even capture real-world requirements.

 

[WildCat]

We've done this before.

"According to the most recent study (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6792/10-18-Tax.pdf) by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Did you compare it to mining and other capital investments that have a long period before returns are realized? This isn't like a furniture store buying a truck.

Compare apples to apples.

Yes. Between 2002 and 2008, direct spending on traditional fossil fuels was $16.3 billion, compared with $6 billion for traditional renewables, and $5 billion for corn ethanol.
http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

Oh look, a pretty pie chart! Unfortunately, it contains virtually no information. The biggest chunk is called "tax breaks", but no description of these breaks is offered. I wonder if the "tax breaks" includes income earned in foreign countries and thus not subject to US income tax? And I wonder how much of this direct spending is the ongoing government effort to produce "clean coal"?

How does one go about paying back a loan guarantee? Can you spot the logic fail?

When the payments are due you transfer the amount due from your bank account to the government's treasury.

How do you think they are paid back? What is the "logic fail"?

 

[Dymanic]

WHAT does that have to do with efficient or practical use of hybrid cars?

If you don't see the question -- "Who benefits from government distortions of market forces [through tax subsidies] and over what time frame? -- as having anything do to with efficient or practical use of (say) hybrid cars, then I don't know what hope there is for you ever developing even a rudimentary grasp of the issue we're discussing here.

 

[Dymanic]

Did you compare it to mining and other capital investments that have a long period before returns are realized?

Under Effective Tax Rates on Capital Income of C Corporations, the CBO study that article links places Mining and Oil-Field Machinery in a single category with regard to equipment, taxed at the same rate. Under Structures, it separates the two, placing Petroleum and Natural-Gas Structures at the very bottom of the ranked list of tax rates by asset type.

When the payments are due you transfer the amount due from your bank account to the government's treasury.

I'd say you need to give a little more thought to the meaning implicit in the phrase, "loan guarantee".

 

[Dymanic]

Oh look, a pretty pie chart! Unfortunately, it contains virtually no information.

Sorry about that. Meant to link to the study rather than simply to the graphic. Here ya go:
http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

 

[mhaze]

If you don't see the question -- "Who benefits from government distortions of market forces [through tax subsidies] and over what time frame? -- as having anything do to with efficient or practical use of (say) hybrid cars, then I don't know what hope there is for you ever developing even a rudimentary grasp of the issue we're discussing here.

Best I can make out, we were talking about issues with hybrid cars, and you walked in with "Hey, well how bout this other subsidy, and dis, and dis? How about them, hey?" or some such thing.

I think that's a far cry from just bringing to peoples' attention it isn't the smartest thing in the world to buy a Prius for highway driving. Or that the reasons people do that is magical thinking caused by green propaganda and and government subsidies.

Are oil companies drilling in areas with no oil because of government subsidies? Nooooo.....

 

[TimCallahan]

Private subdivisions in CA on those rolling hills that have always been understood to be unstable and the resulting mudslides and destruction is definitely in the boondoggle-by-government-negligence category. Same is true of development in likely forest fire zones, or for various structures on the major fault lines. This is part of the civil engineer's job in developing the plan, which would then be submitted to the governmental unit for approval or consideration. State regulations usually limit the decisions of the country (or parish) on these matters. As I understand it, the state of CA is both negligent in this, and secondly, provides insurance pool to allow the people to rebuild in those areas at essentially no cost.

It's interesting that you don'tseem to see any responsibility for such boondoggles resting on the shoulders of the developers. Is it your view that they have a perfect right to put up developments in fire prone areas, on unstable hillsides and in desert areas with insufficient water resources, just as long as the government lets them do it?

As to your assertion that the state provides insurance at no cost to those living in hazardous zones, that is simply nonsense. I live on the edge of the Angeles Forest. Fortunately there is a company, Farmers, that will insure us. The insurance provided by the state is both limited and exorbitant.

 

[AlBell]

Funny that economic conservatives need to be reminded what an investment is, especially one as safe a bet as infrastructure improvement.

Safe? You jest. Cost overruns, high salaries&benefits for workers, and limited ridership burns money year after year. See Miami Metrorail; Reagan said it would be cheaper to use a limo for every rider, and events so far prove him correct.

Infrastructure? I'll give you that; wrong infrastructure unfortunately.

 

[mhaze]

It's interesting that you don'tseem to see any responsibility for such boondoggles resting on the shoulders of the developers. Is it your view that they have a perfect right to put up developments in fire prone areas, on unstable hillsides and in desert areas with insufficient water resources, just as long as the government lets them do it?

As to your assertion that the state provides insurance at no cost to those living in hazardous zones, that is simply nonsense. I live on the edge of the Angeles Forest. Fortunately there is a company, Farmers, that will insure us. The insurance provided by the state is both limited and exorbitant.

Actually, the customers will buy, the developers will develop...it's a classical case of a need for government regulation.

You might ask...did the developers lie about the conditions or misrepresent them. You might ask, was there "full disclosure". Oh, wait, that would imply regulation to require such disclosure of site conditions. ...

So who underwrites that Farmers policy?

 

[TimCallahan]

Actually, the customers will buy, the developers will develop...it's a classical case of a need for government regulation.
You might ask...did the developers lie about the conditions or misrepresent them. You might ask, was there "full disclosure". Oh, wait, that would imply regulation to require such disclosure of site conditions. ...

So who underwrites that Farmers policy?

Well, I'm glad we agree on that. Farmers has a number of underwriters. What's the point of your question?

 

[Dymanic]

Best I can make out, we were talking about issues with hybrid cars, and you walked in with "Hey, well how bout this other subsidy, and dis, and dis? How about them, hey?" or some such thing.

As if to illustrate my point.

Try backing up to where YOU mentioned government distorting market forces through tax credit subsidies, and see if you can figure out why anyone might possibly suggest that the distortion resulting from a decades-long history of massive US government subsidies to the oil industry influences the price US drivers pay for gasoline, and hence skews the cost/benefit equation for a person considering whether the higher cost of a hybrid offers an attractive potential return on investment. I know. It sounds complicated.

You know, there's always the possibility that one or two of those Prius owners are betting that gasoline won't stay around the affordable $4 or so per gallon it is now. Could be they've bought gasoline in Europe sometime recently, or that they've been reading the news regarding Iran and Israel and all that and thinking about how that might impact oil prices, or maybe they still remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, when oil prices suddenly quadrupled. With gas at $16 bucks a gallon, those Prius drivers would be rolling down the road laughing their asses off.

Are oil companies drilling in areas with no oil because of government subsidies? Nooooo.....

Actually: Yesssss.... Once again you demonstrate while you're full of strong opinions, you just haven't bothered to learn enough about this topic to discuss it from facts rather than pure political ideology. Paying oil companies for drilling dry holes is exactly what a lot of those subsidies are intended to do. "Drilling" generally refers to the process of poking a hole in the ground to confirm whether or not there really is as much oil there as the other methods predict. Quite often it turns out that there isn't, but unfortunately, poking that hole is the only perfectly reliable test. The idea is that because we ("the people") need the oil, we don't want oil companies to let the profit motive be the only thing driving their efforts; by giving them those tax breaks we're basically absorbing some of the losses represented by those unsuccessful efforts to produces the stuff. See how it works now?

 

[AlBell]

Would YOU be paying for it?

For all who actually pay IRS tax, yup.

 

[WildCat]

Under Effective Tax Rates on Capital Income of C Corporations, the CBO study that article links places Mining and Oil-Field Machinery in a single category with regard to equipment, taxed at the same rate. Under Structures, it separates the two, placing Petroleum and Natural-Gas Structures at the very bottom of the ranked list of tax rates by asset type.

And what do you think the reason for that is?

I'd say you need to give a little more thought to the meaning implicit in the phrase, "loan guarantee".

Sometimes goverment guarantees private loans, sometimes it's a direct loan from the Fed. Not much difference either way.

And in the case of nuclear reactors the loan guarantees are not because there's a question of the reactor not generating enough power, or being unable to find buyers for that power. It's to protect against the risk of baseless lawsuits and politics delaying the opening of the plant for years, if not forever. It's not because there's a question about the ability of nuclear plants to produce lots of cheap electricity, it's well-established that they can do that.

 

[mhaze]

As if to illustrate my point.

Try backing up to where YOU mentioned government distorting market forces through tax credit subsidies, and see if you can figure out why anyone might possibly suggest that the distortion resulting from a decades-long history of massive US government subsidies to the oil industry influences the price US drivers pay for gasoline, and hence skews the cost/benefit equation for a person considering whether the higher cost of a hybrid offers an attractive potential return on investment. I know. It sounds complicated.

You know, there's always the possibility that one or two of those Prius owners are betting that gasoline won't stay around the affordable $4 or so per gallon it is now. Could be they've bought gasoline in Europe sometime recently, or that they've been reading the news regarding Iran and Israel and all that and thinking about how that might impact oil prices, or maybe they still remember the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, when oil prices suddenly quadrupled. With gas at $16 bucks a gallon, those Prius drivers would be rolling down the road laughing their asses off.
....

It doesn't matter. They won't be rolling down the FREEWAY laughing their asses off. They will still only get the benefits of a hybrid in city traffic for the most part. And that's the point you took issue with, wasn't it? Or are you just trying to change the goal posts here?

Oh and lay off the attitude - I've had cars that pretty much matched the prius, but were not hybrid. How many? 1, 2 , 3. And I know of numerous ways to drive cheap, if gas gets up to European rates (due of course to their governments taxing it). Yes, that's ways to drive cheaper than with a Prius, which is EASY to do. So who's going to be laughing?

....ut this topic to discuss it from facts rather than pure political ideology. Paying oil companies for drilling dry holes is exactly what a lot of those subsidies are intended to do. "Drilling" generally refers to the process of poking a hole in the ground to confirm whether or not there really is as much oil there as the other methods predict. Quite often it turns out that there isn't, but unfortunately, poking that hole is the only perfectly reliable test. The idea is that because we ("the people") need the oil, we don't want oil companies to let the profit motive be the only thing driving their efforts; by giving them those tax breaks we're basically absorbing some of the losses represented by those unsuccessful efforts to produces the stuff. See how it works now?

What I meant was that oil companies do not drill in areas where it is known there is no oil. Many holes are drilled on an exploratory basis, yes.