|
gufpott (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
grastog
We pay about £1 per litre ($12 per gallon) in the UK. Cars are generally smaller, but roads are congested.
My main issue is not price, but those who talk lots and still have lower price. I wonder if the US has the guts to follow the UK.
It will take an even higher price to get people out their cars. Maybe 50% more.
Before we get there, the public rises up to demand gasoline tax reductions. It will take a brave government to ignore the demands of their electorate.
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Incidentally, cape, to head off distractions, I have no interest in quarreling over whether $10/gallon described in the link I supplied is exactly correct - readers can judge for themselves. What isn't debatable is a need to develop alternatives for CO2 reduction, and the fact that the pump price of gasoline is artificially low in a way that discourages the development of fossil fuel alternatives. I'd hope to remain focused on debates or discussions about how to reach CO2 reduction goals.
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Although the following link calculates the true cost of gasoline at $10/gallon (recordonline. com/apps/pbcs. dll/article?AID=/20080608/NEWS/806080327), others arrive at higher figures. What is incontrovertible is that the public is subsidizing the cost of gasoline through hidden costs, and if those were included in the pump price, development of alternative energy to replace fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions would be expedited. Given the need for CO2 curtailment, that would be desirable.
gufpott (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
grastog has a fair point that price distortion will mis-allocate resources.
Hidden support for the oil industry should be discouraged. I doubt it occurs in the UK, where the government taxes the oil industry at every step.
It seems likely that grastog's economic analyst was alluding to an externality: environmental costs which are not evident in price.
It rather assumes the externality relates to genuine damage and compensation can be properly valued. It is a highly political issue.
capemall (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I'll assume from the lack of response you would prefer I not look at where the price of $10 a gallon came from....since even the "true" cost of gas that adds about $1.50 to the price has issues which are stretches of logic easily argued against this is probably for the best since your economist was obviously full of fertilizer
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Data I saw indicated quite small Transmission/Distribution losses (climatetechnology. gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2. pdf), and the source I provided earlier suggested that battery recharging at night is particularly efficient. Even so, I don't know the subject well enough to dwell on the claimed current CO2 savings from electric cars. I believe the main CO2 reductions will come from future substitution of alternative energy sources for fossil fuels to generate electricity.
gufpott (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"what I consider more important is that increased use of electricity in cars will pave the way for the substantial CO2 savings resulting from use of altnerative energy sources to generate electricity"
I know where you're coming from, and share some of your sentiments.
However, there is no point in throwing ourselves into "solutions" which increase economic cost and yield a net increase in CO2 emissions.
That should be limited to those who can afford feelgood luxuries.
gufpott (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
grastog -
be sure to count both transmission and distribution losses. This is standard technology - longer US distances suggest greater losses than the UK.
google the following for a UK example. Loss Adjustment Factors down to household voltage are referred to as "ML2" and "ML3"
"YEDL - UoS Look Up Tables - Feb 08 update xls"
There are time-of-day factors - household demand is weighted into times of highest losses (not surprisingly).
gufpott (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
droogish
Is there a paper in the literature which attempts to prove AGW on the strength of empirical data? Something to quantify your assumed "conventional belief".
Or do you think it is sensible to present a paper to a journal which seeks to test and correct an assumed and unquantified "conventional belief"?
grastog1313 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Gufpott - the source I cited may not have specified transmission losses in describing its comparisons. The U.S. DOE estimates these at 9.5% for the U.S. grid on average, which still leaves electric vehicles from coal-fired electricity ahead of internal combustion in terms of CO2 reduction. Again, though, I'm thinking more of future CO2 savings as electricity moves to alternative energy sources for its generation. |
