Thread: A Challenge to all those Who Rant and Rave Against the Fossil Fuel Industry

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

No, actually, you fell off right at the start. The tax on non-fossil energy is ZERO. That means nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, biomass, etc. The main effect of the tax is to price fossil out of the market. Nuclear is already cheaper than coal, wind is as cheap, and solar is getting there fast. What the tax does is provide an incentive for investment in non-fossil energy sources.

So your plan is a crushing tax to drive fossil fuel to zero...and you expect to do this without raising peoples power bills?

No, next time read for content. The fossil fuel tax is offset by decreased income tax. Fossil fuel cost will go up, but income taxes will come down in compensation. That's what "revenue neutral" means.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Nuclear is not cheaper than coal, plus it takes 10 plus years to get a permit IF you get one at all.

Permitting is a regulatory issue, not a technological or economic one. In other words, permitting can be speeded up with a policy change only.
Nuclear power LCOE is comparable to coal right now, and would be cheaper with a fossil fuel tax.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Wind and coal are comparable in cost/kwh, but the problem with wind is STORAGE...we have only one anywhere near efficient way to store electricity and that works only for hydro. When the wind quits you power is OUT. The nation cannot have wind as a base load source...only for peaking...same with solar (which by the way is 3 - 4 times more than coal)

If we only had one or two sites for wind in the entire country your argument would hold water. With a thousand distributed sites it doesn't. Wind is always blowing somewhere.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

And this is worse than income tax ... why, exactly? And if you think 40% of tax revenue goes to enforcement, you must be smoking something illegal.

Have you ever DEALT with gov't agencies? The will bloat up to have their cut. But no matter, your TAX is actually a banishment of an industry so this is moot.

From your avoidance of the question, I take it you agree that the fossil fuel tax is no worse than the income tax. One point for me.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Whose estimates? Where?

Google costs of sequestration, you just made cost statements above with no citation. I haven't time to educate you.

In the first place, we weren't talking about sequestration. Next time read for content. In the second place, I take it from your avoidance of the question that you have no evidence to back up your uninformed opinion. Another point for me.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Suddenly a non-sourced zero-evidence doubling becomes a non-sourced zero-evidence tripling. No wonder people don't trust right-wingers. They can't even get their own made-up "facts" straight.

Experience laddie....when the gov't says they can do something for $1.00, it always ends up being $2.00 or better....do you ever read the newspaper?

Another false statement. Hoover dam was completed two years ahead of schedule and millions of dollars under budget. US 6 Eagle River bridge completed under budget. East Wauneta water project completed under budget. New Grafton HS (Mass.) completed under budget. Rocky River wastewater treatment plant completed under budget. New Mississippi River bridge in St. Louis completed under budget.

I guess "always" doesn't always make it to Faux Snooze.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

The US produces about 18% of global fossil fuel emissions. So what? That doesn't change the argument in the slightest.

I'll try again, you want to stop US FF CO2 emissions, ostensibly to stop AGW....right? Your religion....excuse me..."science"...stipulates that AGW is caused by CO2.....still with me??
OK hold on now, this is where you are going to have trouble....US fossil fuel emissions FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION are a tiny percentage of world wide FF emissions (not 18%) which are in turn a tiny percent of CO2 emissions. (ya still there??)

Missing the point again with another strawman. Because we're not talking just electricity, we're talking all fossil fuels.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

.....so what you propose (at great cost to Americans) will only address a tiny tiny % of the problem that YOU PERCEIVE.

Wrong again. First, what I propose has ZERO COST to Americans. Because when I said, "revenue neutral", you just skipped right over that part so you could pretend I said something else. The Republican mind is a wonder to behold: It just doesn't understand simple English.

Wrong again twice, because I never said I was confining my remarks or my solution to the US. You asked what we wanted, and I told you. I never said what I wanted was a US-only solution. Next time, read for content.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

There now, my 8 year old granddaughter could follow that....

Great, put her on in your place, because you're obviously clueless.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

And lower their income tax. And while the fossil fuel tax is easily avoidable, income tax isn't.

You completely ignore the fact that China and India make anything we do here worthless, but OK, I am used to Warmists ignoring unpleasant facts.

And you completely ignore the fact that I didn't disinclude China, India, or anywhere else.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

As to you statement, are you now saying that after this tax, which makes no revenue but destroys and industry and millions of jobs,

How do you know when a Republican is lying? It's when they're typing on the keyboard. Since when does this tax make no revenue? Where do you get these total, absolute lies?

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

In conclusion it is clear you haven't the technical knowledge to understand what you propose (its effect on the nations power supply), and you seem totally oblivious to the most basic laws of economics......have you considered applying for a job with the Obama Administration?????

It's clear that you are the one who's clueless in economics. But that just makes you a Republican.

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

No, next time read for content. The fossil fuel tax is offset by decreased income tax. Fossil fuel cost will go up, but income taxes will come down in compensation. That's what "revenue neutral" means.

This is what you said:The main effect of the tax is to price fossil out of the market. That means your plan is to run fossil fuel OUT OF THE MARKET. Next time type for content.


Permitting is a regulatory issue, not a technological or economic one. In other words, permitting can be speeded up with a policy change only.
Nuclear power LCOE is comparable to coal right now, and would be cheaper with a fossil fuel tax.

1) regulatory or not, it is a roadblock to your plan....good luck getting permits from the same nut jobs that will close the fossil plants
2)here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...city_by_source is a chart from the DOE that says your concept of "comparable" LCOE is pretty strange



If we only had one or two sites for wind in the entire country your argument would hold water. With a thousand distributed sites it doesn't. Wind is always blowing somewhere.

Have you EVER seen the studies of how many wind turbines it takes to establish a baseless capability in America...I suggest you look some up. And no - I am NOT going to spend my time doing your research for you...I have a real job....if you don't believe me look it up.

Also for the information of any who can understand a good sized coal fired plant makes 2 gigawatts, a BIG (and I mean BIG) wind turbine makes maybe 1 megawatt....do the math. There is a place for wind power in America's mix...it is not anything major...it is not possible.


From your avoidance of the question, I take it you agree that the fossil fuel tax is no worse than the income tax. One point for me.

Income tax is administered by the IRS, what you propose would be administered by the EPA. You do not have to install and inspect monitoring equipment on you income, nor do you have to gather test samples of income to prove compliance....Have you ever dealt with the EPA like I have??? You can claim as many points as you wish, but folks with real-world experience reading this know I am right.


In the first place, we weren't talking about sequestration. Next time read for content. In the second place, I take it from your avoidance of the question that you have no evidence to back up your uninformed opinion. Another point for me.

My mistake. I misread: capture the external cost of fossil carbon and thought you wanted to use sequestration as a tax avoidance.


Another false statement. Hoover dam was completed two years ahead of schedule and millions of dollars under budget. US 6 Eagle River bridge completed under budget. East Wauneta water project completed under budget. New Grafton HS (Mass.) completed under budget. Rocky River wastewater treatment plant completed under budget. New Mississippi River bridge in St. Louis completed under budget.

I guess "always" doesn't always make it to Faux Snooze.

Oh goody, now you cherry pick a handful of projects out of thousands to make a "point" because I used a metaphorical "always".. Cherry picking is typical of the alarmists. I could crash this site pasting lists of gov't projects that have run grotesquely over budget, but then I would be at your level.



Missing the point again with another strawman. Because we're not talking just electricity, we're talking all fossil fuels.

Let me be sure of something, you actually believe that America (or the world) can run ALL ENERGY sources without fossil fuels? That we can heat/cool homes, run vehicles, chemical plants, steel mills, etc. ALL on power derived from wind, nuclear, hydro and solar? Is this what you are claiming?? Yes or no would be good. But if you say no then explain plz just what you propose to use to power over the road trucks, airliners and cargo ships.....PLEASE.

Wrong again. First, what I propose has ZERO COST to Americans. Because when I said, "revenue neutral", you just skipped right over that part so you could pretend I said something else. The Republican mind is a wonder to behold: It just doesn't understand simple English.

Ok.....lets see...you are going to either price fossil fuel out of the market or at least make it so expensive as to hugely increase everyone's cost of living (you DO realize increased energy cost affects EVERYTHING....not just your monthly power bill.????) Then, you are going to offset that cost by slashing income tax so everyone can afford it? Since you have priced fossil fuel down if not out ofthe market the income to the gov't from your tax is near zero.....so how do you plan to replace all the $$$ you will remove from the gov't coffers to slash the income tax? Print more liberal dollars??....It has worked so far hasn't it?


Wrong again twice, because I never said I was confining my remarks or my solution to the US. You asked what we wanted, and I told you. I never said what I wanted was a US-only solution. Next time, read for content.

US policy is all we can control....we cannot dictate to China and India. You DO realize when I asked for a plan it was implied it had to be workable...economically, politically, technologically.....because so far your answers indicate that you did not.


Great, put her on in your place, because you're obviously clueless.

Ignore


And you completely ignore the fact that I didn't disinclude China, India, or anywhere else.

Yes, you are now waving your magic wand and saying congress can make them comply too....you may as well said we will use cold fusion.


How do you know when a Republican is lying? It's when they're typing on the keyboard. Since when does this tax make no revenue? Where do you get these total, absolute lies?

Since when does this tax make no revenue? Since your plan said you wanted to QUOTE: "The main effect of the tax is to price fossil out of the market." You see an industry "out of the market" generates zero taxes...look it up.

It's clear that you are the one who's clueless in economics. But that just makes you a Republican.

Lemmie guess.....you are a college professor aren't you?? I deal with them all the time and your thought pattern is typical of many academicians...smart but so utterly out of touch with the real world as to be useless outside the classroom. You COULD get on Obama's cabinet though....

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Lemmie guess.....you are a college professor aren't you?? I deal with them all the time and your thought pattern is typical of many academicians...smart but so utterly out of touch with the real world as to be useless outside the classroom. You COULD get on Obama's cabinet though....

Wow! Poordebater responds to your post point by point and the best you can come up with is an anti-academia insult and a bashing of our President.
That's a hell uv a debating tactic ya got there elmer.
But then again, that's all the deniers have, insults and misinformation.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Lemmie guess.....you are a college professor aren't you?? I deal with them all the time and your thought pattern is typical of many academicians...smart but so utterly out of touch with the real world as to be useless outside the classroom. You COULD get on Obama's cabinet though....

Shorter Elmer Fudd: "I got nuthin!"

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

This is what you said:The main effect of the tax is to price fossil out of the market. That means your plan is to run fossil fuel OUT OF THE MARKET. Next time type for content.

Is it really necessary for you to disagree with me even when I'm agreeing with you? Yes, you're right: electricity bills will go up (at least initially, until the switch to non-fossil energy is complete). That's because the fossil fuel tax will be passed on to the consumer. But no, consumers won't end up paying more overall, because the fossil fuel tax will be offset by lower taxes in other areas. Presumably this means income tax, but I'm flexible on that point. So energy bills will go up. But it won't matter.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

1) regulatory or not, it is a roadblock to your plan....good luck getting permits from the same nut jobs that will close the fossil plants

You're saying we can't change because we can't change. That's not an argument, it's a tautology. The main roadblock to this plan are the "nut jobs" that oppose it without a good reason.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

2)here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...city_by_source is a chart from the DOE that says your concept of "comparable" LCOE is pretty strange

Let's put that on a graph:


Sure looks like nuclear is comparable to coal to me. And remember: it's only fossil energy that's taxed. All other types get a free ride.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Have you EVER seen the studies of how many wind turbines it takes to establish a baseless capability in America...I suggest you look some up. And no - I am NOT going to spend my time doing your research for you...I have a real job....if you don't believe me look it up.

In other words, you have been proven wrong, you have no evidence to dispute it, and you're not going to post any.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Also for the information of any who can understand a good sized coal fired plant makes 2 gigawatts, a BIG (and I mean BIG) wind turbine makes maybe 1 megawatt....do the math. There is a place for wind power in America's mix...it is not anything major...it is not possible.

Big wind turbines are running 2 to 3 MW these days, but I suppose Faux Snooze is generally 10 years behind the times. Iowa got about 20% of its electricity from wind last year. I'd call that major.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Income tax is administered by the IRS, what you propose would be administered by the EPA.

False. Never said that. It makes no sense for the EPA to collect a tax anyway. They have no expertise in that area.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

You do not have to install and inspect monitoring equipment on you income, nor do you have to gather test samples of income to prove compliance

You don't have to do that with the fossil tax either. Just a show of production/import amount, fossil type, and a simple calculation would be enough. Much, much simpler than income tax, and many fewer sources to collect from. That means easier & cheaper to administer and enforce. The size of the IRS would probably go down.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

....Have you ever dealt with the EPA like I have??? You can claim as many points as you wish, but folks with real-world experience reading this know I am right.

Since we're not talking EPA, your entire argument is based on a false premise.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Oh goody, now you cherry pick a handful of projects out of thousands to make a "point" because I used a metaphorical "always".. Cherry picking is typical of the alarmists. I could crash this site pasting lists of gov't projects that have run grotesquely over budget, but then I would be at your level.

So we agree that government projects are fully capable of coming in on time and at or under budget.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Let me be sure of something, you actually believe that America (or the world) can run ALL ENERGY sources without fossil fuels? That we can heat/cool homes, run vehicles, chemical plants, steel mills, etc. ALL on power derived from wind, nuclear, hydro and solar? Is this what you are claiming?? Yes or no would be good.

Not just yes, but absolutely yes. And it's not just that we can. It's that we must. Fossil fuel is finite! If we don't solve the energy problem, civilization is doomed. So why not solve it now, instead of waiting until the apocalypse is breathing hot down our necks?

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

But if you say no then explain plz just what you propose to use to power over the road trucks, airliners and cargo ships.....PLEASE.

Biofuels have already been used in airliners and trucks. CoolGreenPlanet has a process that can turn miscanthus into gasoline at a rate of 4000 gallons per acre per year. At that rate we can replace every drop of gasoline used in the US with 10% of our arable land. Considering that we currently export half of our food crop, we could do that easily.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Ok.....lets see...you are going to either price fossil fuel out of the market or at least make it so expensive as to hugely increase everyone's cost of living (you DO realize increased energy cost affects EVERYTHING....not just your monthly power bill.????)

And you DO realize that the excess cost can be entirely avoided by using non-fossil energy? And that people will actually do that? And that basic economics actually works?

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Then, you are going to offset that cost by slashing income tax so everyone can afford it? Since you have priced fossil fuel down if not out ofthe market the income to the gov't from your tax is near zero .....so how do you plan to replace all the $$$ you will remove from the gov't coffers to slash the income tax? Print more liberal dollars??....It has worked so far hasn't it?

When revenue from the fossil fuel tax reaches zero, that means that fossil fuel use reaches zero too, which is just what we want. And if nobody's using fossil fuels, then the economic impact of the tax has reached zero too, which is just what you want. So everybody wins. At that point, other sources of revenue would be ramped back up to current levels. The difference is we would have achieved a non-fossil economy, would have achieved zero oil imports, would have stopped sending billions per year overseas, would have saved the US economy, and would have saved the planet in the bargain. Win-win-win-win.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

US policy is all we can control....we cannot dictate to China and India. You DO realize when I asked for a plan it was implied it had to be workable...economically, politically, technologically.....because so far your answers indicate that you did not.

This plan is completely workable. Australia already has a fossil carbon tax. You asked what we wanted, and this is what we want. CO2 knows no boundaries and the solution should be global. A fossil carbon tax in the US is just doing our part.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Yes, you are now waving your magic wand and saying congress can make them comply too....you may as well said we will use cold fusion.

International treaties have worked in the past and can work in the future. You're just being being obstructionist for no good reason.

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Since when does this tax make no revenue? Since your plan said you wanted to QUOTE: "The main effect of the tax is to price fossil out of the market." You see an industry "out of the market" generates zero taxes...look it up.

I didn't say the tax made no revenue, I said it was "revenue neutral". That means the revenue provided by the fossil carbon tax is offset by lowering revenue from other taxes (which in the US means primarily income tax) by the same amount. The total amount of revenue taken in by the government remains the same, it's just taken from different sources.

I didn't say the tax made no revenue, I said it was "revenue neutral". That means the revenue provided by the fossil carbon tax is offset by lowering revenue from other taxes (which in the US means primarily income tax) by the same amount. The total amount of revenue taken in by the government remains the same, it's just taken from different sources.

Arguing with you is like talking to a dolphin. You refuse to admit the underlying flaw in your plan. You plan to save the world with a carbon tax that will drive fossil fuels out and make other sources attractive economically. THEN you plan to use the revenues from that tax to offset the huge increase in the cost of living with cuts in other taxes. One you have saved the planet by shutting down fossil fuels, there ARE NO REVENUES.

Do you understand the child's phrase "have your cake and eat it too"....and the logical fallacy it describes????

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

Arguing with you is like talking to a dolphin. You refuse to admit the underlying flaw in your plan. You plan to save the world with a carbon tax that will drive fossil fuels out and make other sources attractive economically. THEN you plan to use the revenues from that tax to offset the huge increase in the cost of living with cuts in other taxes. One you have saved the planet by shutting down fossil fuels, there ARE NO REVENUES.

Changing energy sources does not necessarily mean a change in cost of living. I posted a chart upthread with LCOE for various energy sources, and if you examine that chart you will find that nuclear, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydro are all about the same cost as coal right now. Switching to those alternatives costs you almost nothing.

So the eventual net effect of the carbon tax is only a small amount of revenue ... and you're complaining about that? That's not a bug, it's a feature.

ScreenHunter_16 May. 25 07.21.jpg

This is the DOE chart read, the last column. Apparently your skill with bar charts rivals that with curve fits. You plan is worthless.....

Originally Posted by Elmer Fudd

ScreenHunter_16 May. 25 07.21.jpg

This is the DOE chart read, the last column. Apparently your skill with bar charts rivals that with curve fits. You plan is worthless.....

Every datum on that chart is also on the graph I posted -- along with a lot of other data on the very same wikipedia page from which you lifted your image. Apparently your skill with numbers is worthless.

Oh, and it's not my plan: it's a Republican plan.

Originally Posted by Poor Debater

Every datum on that chart is also on the graph I posted -- along with a lot of other data on the very same wikipedia page from which you lifted your image. Apparently your skill with numbers is worthless.

Oh, and it's not my plan: it's a Republican plan.

You graphed coal, nuke, and wind along with solar. Solar is so far above the others it drives the Y axis up, making the other 3 look comparable. I am 6' 7", my wife is 5' 1". Are we comparable?....heck no. But if you chart our heights with that of a giraffi, the graph would make us look almost identical.

Attend:


ScreenHunter_01 May. 25 21.14.jpg

Same numbers, but coal appears to be the clear winner now...wind is more, and nuke is waaaaaay out there....

You can make charts spin anyway you want them.


As for that being a Republican plan, it is the opinion of a single writer......not a consensus offered by republicans in congress. It is no more representative of Republicans that AGW is representative of scientists opinion....