Are you ready for your electric bill to be 10x higher? (Taxing CO2 Emissions)

6SpeedTA95 · 09-12-2007, 11:43 AM

Politicians on both sides of the isle have considered taxing CO2 emissions the latest proposals are 15 dollars per ton of CO2. Here's what this would do to our energy costs...
14 cents per gallon of gasoline
28.50 per ton of coal
6.48 per barrel of crude
.81 cubic foot of natural gas
1.63 kilowatt hour of electricity

I think the natural gas may be a misprint. That is probably supposed to be .81 per thousand cubic feet as that is what natural gas is typically sold on. If you read your gas bill a typical home uses about 4000 cubic feet per month on average. So you're talking 4000 dollars? I think thats a misprint in the wall street journal or from their source the american enterprise institute.

The electricity cost of 1.63/kwh is ridiculous as most of us are paying between .08 and .15 per kwh. So you can imagine the fallout from such taxation on energy use and the economy in general. I think its obvious the natural gas taxation price is a misprint, if not there's no way this would ever pass and it doesn't make much sense from a CO2 standpoint given that natural gas is one of the cleanest overall energy sources on the planet.

Thoughts on CO2 taxation and its economic effects?

WickedLou9 · 09-12-2007, 11:53 AM

I don't think that they should tax electricity because doing so would punish even those areas who get thier energy from clean sources like nuclear and hydro.
I think taxing the direct consumption of fossil fuels to a small extent might be a good idea, just so long as the taxes start off very small and increase at a set level so that everyone can plan for it and it won't all hit right at once.

The gas tax hike I am all for and it's probably long over due.

They need to focus on taxes that will help shift demand towards alternative energy. I don't want to see them put taxes on things that consumers have no say over.. IE taxing the coal at a coal fired power plant. The extra cost would simply be passed on to the consumer who does not have a choice where thier power comes from so it would do nothing for reducing demand and it would harm the economy.

Taxing natural gas use would encourage people to seek more energy efficient homes, curtail thier energy use, insulate more, etc.
Gasoline is the same.

I don't think that they should tax the electricity at all. They should probably even subsidise it. If we use more electricity it will encourage the consttruction of new power plants, presumably clean power like nuclear.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-12-2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think that they should tax electricity because doing so would punish even those areas who get thier energy from clean sources like nuclear and hydro.
I think taxing the direct consumption of fossil fuels to a small extent might be a good idea, just so long as the taxes start off very small and increase at a set level so that everyone can plan for it and it won't all hit right at once.

The gas tax hike I am all for and it's probably long over due.

They need to focus on taxes that will help shift demand towards alternative energy. I don't want to see them put taxes on things that consumers have no say over.. IE taxing the coal at a coal fired power plant. The extra cost would simply be passed on to the consumer who does not have a choice where thier power comes from so it would do nothing for reducing demand and it would harm the economy.

Taxing natural gas use would encourage people to seek more energy efficient homes, curtail thier energy use, insulate more, etc.
Gasoline is the same.

I don't think that they should tax the electricity at all. They should probably even subsidise it. If we use more electricity it will encourage the consttruction of new power plants, presumably clean power like nuclear.

There's way to much political redtape to get a nuclear power plant off the ground due to a spike in demand. Instead they woudl build coal fired plants.

They need to start using clean coal technology, natural gas, nuclear power and wind power for electricity generation. Unfortunately there is no single answer to energy issues we will face in the next 100 years.

Publius · 09-12-2007, 12:15 PM

i purchase my energy through green mountain energy, which uses entirely renewable energy sources such as wind mills and hydro. So basically if I have to pay this tax, the U.S. government would be charging me for the wind blowing and for rivers running their course.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-12-2007, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

i purchase my energy through green mountain energy, which uses entirely renewable energy sources such as wind mills and hydro. So basically if I have to pay this tax, the U.S. government would be charging me for the wind blowing and for rivers running their course.

Well at this point both republicans and democrats overall do not support an increased tax, however, people from both parties are still proposing it which is interesting.

WickedLou9 · 09-12-2007, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

There's way to much political redtape to get a nuclear power plant off the ground due to a spike in demand. Instead they woudl build coal fired plants.

They need to start using clean coal technology, natural gas, nuclear power and wind power for electricity generation. Unfortunately there is no single answer to energy issues we will face in the next 100 years.

Yeah I agree there is no one fix. But there is an increase in applications for permits for new nuclear plants lately.

If needed, congress could simply mandate that any new power plants be non co2 emitting. Or that only 10% could be coal fired or something like that.
It would certainly have to be a pretty comprehensive bill.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-12-2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Yeah I agree there is no one fix. But there is an increase in applications for permits for new nuclear plants lately.

If needed, congress could simply mandate that any new power plants be non co2 emitting. Or that only 10% could be coal fired or something like that.
It would certainly have to be a pretty comprehensive bill.

Oh yeah I agree...

BTW I confirmed it was indeed a mispring on the natural gas, it is per MCF not CF.

Nonphixion · 09-12-2007, 05:42 PM

I agree with most of it, but we already pay 18c to 22c per kWH here in NYC.

RMNIXON · 09-12-2007, 07:21 PM

Call me old fashioned, but I thought taxation was for the support of the operations of government. When did trying to control our behavior become such a big part of it? I know, it happened a long time ago. But no need to pile on more now. The only thing holding this back is it will hit the average citizen voter and not just the big corporations unless they find away around that? And don't forget all the corporate and business costs will be passed on to us also..................

6SpeedTA95 · 09-12-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

I agree with most of it, but we already pay 18c to 22c per kWH here in NYC.

Soyou're ok with them taking on another 1.63/kwh?

Scrum · 09-12-2007, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Call me old fashioned, but I thought taxation was for the support of the operations of government. When did trying to control our behavior become such a big part of it?

I couldn't agree more.

This is a lot like the high taxes on tobacco. The government shouldn't be using taxes to change peoples habits.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-12-2007, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I couldn't agree more.

This is a lot like the high taxes on tobacco. The government shouldn't be using taxes to change peoples habits.

Even if the lack of behavioral change could result in substantial problems later? (or now)

thomez · 09-12-2007, 10:48 PM

the misprint on natural gas is probably evidence that the electricity is also a misprint by a power of 10, making it .16 per kilowatt hour

6SpeedTA95 · 09-12-2007, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

the misprint on natural gas is probably evidence that the electricity is also a misprint by a power of 10, making it .16 per kilowatt hour

I doubt it, because electricity is commonly measured in KWH, natural gas is never measured by cubic feet but instead by thousand cubic feet or MCF.

You could be right, lets assume you are, are you prepared to pay double or triple?

thomez · 09-12-2007, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I doubt it, because electricity is commonly measured in KWH, natural gas is never measured by cubic feet but instead by thousand cubic feet or MCF.

You could be right, lets assume you are, are you prepared to pay double or triple?

No, I was just pointing out what seemed to be a 2nd math error, because that's a big change. Time to build some nuke plants. Fast.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-12-2007, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

No, I was just pointing out what seemed to be a 2nd math error, because that's a big change. Time to build some nuke plants. Fast.

I'm a firm believer in taking a broad approach to this problem. Nuclear energy is a huge asset that we must use, but so is clean coal and especially wind and natural gas.

AVengeance · 09-14-2007, 02:22 PM

Thank GOD I'm planning to start putting up solar and wind next year. Can't wait to get off the grid!

RMNIXON · 09-14-2007, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I couldn't agree more.

This is a lot like the high taxes on tobacco. The government shouldn't be using taxes to change peoples habits.

You got it right. There is a difference in trying to pursuade people and strong arming them against their will to do something. I have no problem encouraging people to cut down on energy use and CO2.

RMNIXON · 09-14-2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Thank GOD I'm planning to start putting up solar and wind next year. Can't wait to get off the grid!

Do it because you want to do it. Not because the government has promised another drain on your income!