View Full Version : how much was your home/apartment?
Melonie
12-13-2007, 03:55 AM
Not to drift too far off the point (again), but Brazil invested in ethanol development because sugar cane based ethanol is a 'business' with profitable economics. It is so profitable in fact that the US government had to enact import quotas and a 56 cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian sugar cane ethanol in order to protect the corn based US ethanol program that it subsidizes. If this quota and tariff did not exist, Brazilian ethanol for sale in the US would be 56 cents per gallon less expensive than US corn based ethanol ... blended gasoline would be 5.6 cents per gallon less expensive ... but California ethanol refiners and their uber-rich tax shelter investors would also be losing money hand over fist !!! Thanks for reminding me of this absolutely perfect example of the California ethanol refining industry's dependence on the US federal taxpayer (for grant money plus 'rigged' prices plus production tax credit money to investors) plus 'stealth' taxes on US consumers (the hidden 5.6 cent extra cost in every gallon of ethanol blend gas sold in the USA, which is kicked back to the ethanol refiners) for continued economic viability.
Agreed that solar has come a long way. Where once it was 100 times more expensive than nuke plant electricity, now it is only 20 times as expensive as nuke plant electricity. If, after hundreds of billions of dollars worth of taxpayer subsidized research and development, it ever gets down to the point of only being 5 times as expensive as nuke plant electricity, then there's a chance that between additional tax credits to solar companies and additional tax credits to solar customers that the gov't might be able to establish the pretext of a self-sustaining solar industry. In the meantime however, those hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars would have been better spent building nuke plants to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels, to reduce carbon emissions, and to reduce the price of electricity (or at least mitigate the increases). This was what I was thinking when I referred to solar subsidies as a 'rat-hole' ... the subsidy money keeps going in, but nothing truly productive ever comes out. And the irony is that, if some breakthrough were to ever occur, it will ultimately profit the investors in Chinese solar companies far more than the US solar companies.
Circling back to California housing, the 'inflated' ethanol prices in the USA ... and the real reasons behind them i.e. subsidies and stealth taxes ... also directly correlate to 'inflated' real estate prices in California. In both cases the 'inflated' prices are the indirect result of gov't policies that extract money from US taxpayers / consumers on a nationwide basis and funnel much of it back to certain California businesses.
eagle2
12-14-2007, 01:32 AM
Not to drift too far off the point (again), but Brazil invested in ethanol development because sugar cane based ethanol is a 'business' with profitable economics. It is so profitable in fact that the US government had to enact import quotas and a 56 cent per gallon tariff on Brazilian sugar cane ethanol in order to protect the corn based US ethanol program that it subsidizes. If this quota and tariff did not exist, Brazilian ethanol for sale in the US would be 56 cents per gallon less expensive than US corn based ethanol ... blended gasoline would be 5.6 cents per gallon less expensive ... but California ethanol refiners and their uber-rich tax shelter investors would also be losing money hand over fist !!! Thanks for reminding me of this absolutely perfect example of the California ethanol refining industry's dependence on the US federal taxpayer (for grant money plus 'rigged' prices plus production tax credit money to investors) plus 'stealth' taxes on US consumers (the hidden 5.6 cent extra cost in every gallon of ethanol blend gas sold in the USA, which is kicked back to the ethanol refiners) for continued economic viability.
I don't know where you get the idea that California is a major beneficiary of ethanol subsidies and tariffs. California isn't. Only a small number of ethanol refineries are located in California. Most of them are located in other states. The following page has a lists of ethanol biorefinery locations. Very few of them are in California:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/locations/
Agreed that solar has come a long way. Where once it was 100 times more expensive than nuke plant electricity, now it is only 20 times as expensive as nuke plant electricity. If, after hundreds of billions of dollars worth of taxpayer subsidized research and development, it ever gets down to the point of only being 5 times as expensive as nuke plant electricity, then there's a chance that between additional tax credits to solar companies and additional tax credits to solar customers that the gov't might be able to establish the pretext of a self-sustaining solar industry. In the meantime however, those hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars would have been better spent building nuke plants to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels, to reduce carbon emissions, and to reduce the price of electricity (or at least mitigate the increases). This was what I was thinking when I referred to solar subsidies as a 'rat-hole' ... the subsidy money keeps going in, but nothing truly productive ever comes out. And the irony is that, if some breakthrough were to ever occur, it will ultimately profit the investors in Chinese solar companies far more than the US solar companies.
Not sure where you get your numbers from. Most cost estimates I've seen show solar power as 4-5 times more expensive than nuclear and wind power is about the same. According to this site, by 2030, the costs of solar power will be comparable to electricity produced by a nuclear power plant:
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37918/story.htm
Given that it would probably take decades for the US energy industry to completely convert to nuclear power, even if this decision was made tomorrow. Nuclear power plants take years to build and costs billions of dollars. If it is estimated that the cost of solar power can be reduced to that of nuclear power in approximately 25 years, it definitely makes sense to continue pursuing this technology. 25 years from now, there will still be a need for new power plants.
In addition, with solar power, there are no concerns about safety, or disposing of radioactive waste.
According to this site, the government subsidies received the the wind and solar power industry are very small compared to those of the nuclear energy industry:
http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/resRpt11/preleasesubsidies.pdf
Circling back to California housing, the 'inflated' ethanol prices in the USA ... and the real reasons behind them i.e. subsidies and stealth taxes ... also directly correlate to 'inflated' real estate prices in California. In both cases the 'inflated' prices are the indirect result of gov't policies that extract money from US taxpayers / consumers on a nationwide basis and funnel much of it back to certain California businesses.
And as I said before, the high price of real-estate in California has more to do with the success of the California-based companies in the high tech industry rather than any government subsidies. As long as California based firms continue to come out with world-leading products, they will continue to be successful and will be able to pay their employees high salaries which will keep the price of California real estate high. As my previous link shows, the ethanol refining industry barely exists in California and is much more prevalent in other states throughout the country.
Melonie
12-14-2007, 04:45 AM
Only a small number of ethanol refineries are located in California. Most of them are located in other states
yes but A the California refineries are large, and B a very large number of Ethanol investors ... regardless of where the refinieries are located ... are Californians. As a result, a huge amount of production tax credit money flows into California. The reason uber-rich California investors like to put money into Ethanol is obvious, i.e. every dollar received in production tax credits offsets another dollar's worth of taxable income, and California's state tax rates are very high.
Not sure where you get your numbers from. Most cost estimates I've seen show solar power as 4-5 times more expensive than nuclear.
my numbers exclude the gov't subsidies !!!!!!!!
According to this site, the government subsidies received the the wind and solar power industry are very small compared to those of the nuclear energy industry
You might try factoring in the 2 cent per kWh state mandated price premium charged for 'green' electricity versus nuke plant electricity. Where the ethanol tariff adds 5.6 cents to the price of every gallon of blended gas sold in the USA, the 'green electricity' premium adds 5-10% (varies by state and region) to every electric bill. In my book that is a subsidy, and a huge one !!! However, just like blended gasoline, this 'stealth tax' is not publicized or itemized on electric bills. If either was widely publicized a whole bunch of 'Joe Sixpack' voters might change their mind about their former support of ethanol and/or 'green' power.
Again the central point here is that California real estate prices are inflated for a reason. Just as part of the 5.6 cent per gallon premium on blended gasoline sold throughout the country flows back to uber-rich ethanol investors ... many of whom are in California ... part of the 5-10% premium on the 'green energy' content in the electric bills of people throughout the country flows back to uber-rich wind farm or solar investors ... many of whom are also in California. On top of that, the fairly high percentage of wind farm power in California raises electricity bills ... which in turn raises salary demands ... which in turn raises other prices in order to afford paying those higher salaries ... which in turn raises the prices of real estate.