The "REAL" price of gasoline,,,

Not me.

I wish we all knew the real cost of everything, and that it was exactly the same as the sticker price.

 

Icarus you think that you're advocating wind and solar.
But realistically Icarus, you are pushing nukes.
Nuclear power is the present alternative to oil/coal.
Whats the true cost of nuke energy?
Whats the true cost of obtaining lithium to store that nuke energy in our vehicles?
Invade Bolivia next?

 

and don't think for a minute that opec isn't manipulating the price of crude (and our politicians) to keep us hooked.

 

You mean that this isn't the first time that you have mentioned it?

Tom

 

truer words were never spoken. and i'm not just saying that hoping you will hire me as your pr person!

 

I'm all in favor of building SMALLER homes with all exterior walls of Insulated Concrete Form. My ICF home is silent as a tomb, resists temp changes far better than conventional stick-frame, and the utility bills (Heating and cooling) are 1/3 to 1/4 what neighbors with similar sized homes pay

At the time, there was a 30% price premium for an ICF home. Now it's under 12%

Proper site planning also makes a big difference. In a cold climate like mine, you want a SE exposure, but with long roof overhangs to shield the windows from the summer sun. Lot's of "free" heat in winter

All that and I don't even TRY to save energy. Imagine if I actually made some modest effort to try

 

Did you miss yesterday's news? Our troops are already standing on top a trillion dollar pile of valuable minerals, including lithium -- Afghanistan.

 

Hi All,

Well recent history shows that the Oil companies did not sufficient expend money to be ready for a mile deep blow-out. And they did that presumably to keep their production costs lower. If they will not expend the money to be able to handle the inevitable mile deep blow-out, then the government has too. And it has to get that money from the people that use the products of petroleum (not only gas, but plastics and fertilizer). This is a prudent and just tax. And its about time the government levied it and developed a Coast Gaurd oil blow out command.

 

Remember when "nukes" first came on line?...electricity would be too cheap to meter....LOL

Icarus (and many others) are advocating paying the "true" cost of our energy use. If the true cost of nukes is competitive, than let's build them. Problem is no one knows the true cost of producing toxic waste that has to be securely stored for thousands of years. Then there is the whole protecting from terrorist attacks, melt downs, etc.

The fact no new nukes have been built in 30 years is because no one will finance them or insure them!

Questions: How long does the waste from a wind farm need to be securely stored before it is safe?
What happens when a PV array "spills"?
How much of our military budget is dedicated to switching from ICE to EVs?

 

The lineman gets electrocuted.

Less than zero.

 

Which is why the US government will be providing nuke loan guarantees.

 

Do you think maybe nuclear industry lobbyists might have had something to do with that? Or is a free-thinking forward-looking government just doing what's best for all concerned?

 

Actually, it's hedge funds manipulating the price of oil, not OPEC.

 

Gasoline is not the only fuel we are underpaying for.

Here in eastern Missouri, 80% of our electricity is generated
by burning "cheap" coal. That means we have been paying
an average of $.09/kwH, which is about half of what the
east and west coasts pay.

This low cost is a major barrier to the adoption of the
relatively higher cost renewable energy alternatives. If
you try to justify, say, solar power just on its payback
period using current rates, you are well past the 20
year timeframe. That's too long for most people. Ameren
serves 1.2 million customers, and there have been only
55 solar installations from 1/1/2010 through 7/31/2010
(source: Ameren). This is even with the kickstart of
Missouri's $2/watt rebate taking effect on 1/1/2010.

While we do pay a low price for power here, Ameren has
been trying to catch up...not sure if that is to increase
their profits (a fair profit is, well, fair in our society) or
to reflect increasing fuel cost. There have been 10%
increases in each of the last three years, an aggregate
35% total increase.

Ameren just applied for two more increases. The reason
I mention this is because the rationale for these two
increases exposes the proof of our underpaying for
"cheap" coal.

Increase #1 will add a fixed cost of $30 per year per
household. Ameren said this increase is needed to offset
their reduced profits in the energy trading market due
to the recession. These profits from out-of-market
customers, they explained, had been used to subsidize
the cost of the coal that is burned for in-market
customers. In other words, they buy cheap coal, make
electricity cheaper than other power companies, then
sell that electricity on the open market. This has the
perverse effect of making the local market even more
dependent on coal, while punishing other power
companies who used true costs and/or higher cost
renewable energy.

Increase #2, whose exact amount has not yet been
announced, is likely going to be on the order of another
10% and would take effect a year from now. The basis
for this increase is to pay for the $600 million in anti-
pollution gear Ameren installed into one of their coal-
burning power plants. In other words, all that coal
we burned over the last few years at that plant
generated a $600M IOU! [It also gives pause to
consider all the pollution that went up the stack
before the pollution gear got put in.]

Anyways, if you add it up, that's about $700M that
we underpaid for coal!

No one, including myself, wants to pay higher and
higher electricity bills. That being said, in the long
run, if paying the true cost for our fuel starts to
move people towards clean renewables, I'm all for
that.

 

Ok and here is a perverse one - Natcore has technology from Rice University that they are looking to commercialize that would reduce Solar PV costs by about 50% and allow us to economically produce tandam solar cells at 30% effciency (vs current 10-15%) and they could get no US sponsorship so they have just done a JV with the Chinese. Totally nuts.

Big solar is great but if local household solar was 50-80% cheaper many more houses would have it and then we produce power locally with reduced need to transmit and associated losses plus less need to truck/rail around oil, coal etc.

 

First, let me completely agree that government subsidies of gas completely distorts the market. Gasoline prices are one area where the invisible hand works, so keeping gasoline prices low raises relative consumption. This does not mean we should make gasoline more expensive than the real price which causes other market inefficiencies.

There is also some kind of hit squad against fossile fuel. This also seems counter productive. If you penalize the polution the market can take care of itself. Even if the US used no coal, China and India use a great deal. The imperative is to make the technology less hazardous by assigning the true cost, instead of lumping coal and natural gas as bad and under consuming. In the field of power generation their are natural monopolies which requires strong government regulation, but that can be combined with free market principles. The cap and trade that came out of the house was so screwed up as to kill any real free market incentives. This requires good government, and we have shown that it does not exist when it comes to energy policies. I would just like better government. Texas incetivised renewables to compete on a level playing field, and quickly added more wind to the grid. Grandfathering in old inefficient coal plants distorts coal to keep the oldest highest polluting least efficient coal plants. MMS policy of allowing coal producers to draw up contracts removes incentives to cleanly mine and restore mined lands.

Adding military costs to oil prices is realistic, but the military does not protect "our" oil. It is not our oil. This is a place where American foreign policy has been drawn on the worst stages of European imperialism. It is time to reject that cornerstone of oil foreign policy and put jimmy carter back in the dust bin of worst presidents. The carter doctrine, war for oil does not get us more oil, it just costs the nation treasure and ethical behavior. It needs to die.

The anti science of the carter administration subsidies for alternative energy reached a creshendo in the bush administrations subsidies for hydrogen and clean coal. Let's put science back into alternative energy policy. Dr. chu seems to be doing a much better job with investments, but congress and pacs are still running these alternative energy subsidies to make them more expense and less productive than they could be.