The claim you posted and parroted was that removing $20 billion in annual subsidies would result in $12.75/gallon gasoline. That is the math I asked for. I won’t hold my breath. LOL.
ICEs and EVs
- Thread starter Funkworks
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
If you feel the figures are wrong then feel free to post numbers refuting that.
Because so far you haven't posted anything supporting your statements.
I won't be holding MY breath.
Because so far you haven't posted anything supporting your statements.
I won't be holding MY breath.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
- Reaction score
- 7,943
This is one of those places where the math is a little surprising. I was all ready to estimate that the fuel cost of transporting fuel was on the order of a few percent, then...
Some time ago on another project, I worked out an efficiency number for semi trucks--around 100 ton-miles per gallon of fuel. Based on a very limited search just now, that might be a little low, but it makes the math easier. Semi trucks are also the least efficient means of transporting fuel (as opposed to rail or pipelines), so these are absolute worst case numbers.
A typical double tanker truck is about 11,500 gallons, gasoline is 6.3 lbs/gallon, so a load of gasoline is right around 36 tons.
For the sake or argument, let's say that the gasoline is moved 150 miles by semi truck. That's probably really high except for very rural areas--most places are closer to an oil pipeline than that.
That rate means that the tanker truck would burn 54 gallons (36 tons * 150 miles / 100 ton-miles/gallon) to move 11,500 gallons of gasoline to its destination, or about 0.5%.
I will grant that this doesn't account for movement of bulk oil to the refinery or moving refined products to terminals for road shipment, but I also note above that I'm making some very unfavorable assumptions about road transport as noted above. Based on these numbers, I'd be surprised if the total transport cost of gasoline/diesel was more than 1% of the total.
That said, I can't exactly dispute @mach7's numbers of 8-15% electricity losses in power transmission, but I do note that the federal government thinks it's more like 5%. I can't say from the level of information available whether the federal government numbers include all of the losses in the post the Mach7 cites.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
jderimig already did that. He showed his math (albeit back of the napkin). Rather than refute his claim with your own math you simply repeated your earlier claim.If you feel the figures are wrong then feel free to post numbers refuting that.
Because so far you haven't posted anything supporting your statements.
I won't be holding MY breath.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
Total nonsense. What is the amount of subsidies, $20 billion or $3trillion?Great! Then since by your own analysis fossil fuel subsidies are a drop in the bucket and do not keep fuel prices artificially low then you would have no objection to the complete elimination of all fossil fuel subsidies right?
BTW subsidy amounts are not added to the retail cost of gasoline.as in your analysis. They go to the producers to keep oil prices artificially low.
More information on fossil fuel subsidies:
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidieshttps://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-proposals-to-reduce-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2021
Oh, and by the way, here's what a gallon of gasoline would cost in the US without the subsidies:
https://short-facts.com/how-much-do-oil-companies-get-in-subsidies/"How much would a gallon of gas cost without government subsidies?
Without subsidies we would all be paying roughly $12.75 per gallon for gasoline. The subject area of interest is how budget cuts might actually get rid of dirty fuel subsidies."
So I was wrong. It's a quadrupling of prices, not tripling.
335 billion gallons of gasoline annually with $9 subsidy per gallon = $3 Trillion per year in government subsidies. Can you find that on the US Budget line item for me? US only has $4 trillion in tax revenue per year.
The only energy cost that is going to triple are Hawaii electricity rates when they shut down their coal plants.
Last edited:
No, I provided three links explaining how subsidies keep fuel prices artificially low.
And I remarked that adding the value of the subsidies to the retail price is meaningless. Subsidies go to the producer to lower production costs and incentivize increased production. Retail selling price can be several times the cost of production. So the net reduction in selling price via lowered production cost can be several times the amount of the subsidy.
Economics 101.
Actually the last coal fired plant was shut down a few weeks ago, as I had previously posted. Try reading the posts for a change. And yes, there will be an increase in prices due to the shortfall in electricity production short term, and the rise in prices for Russian oil. But nowhere near a tripling. More like $15/month for the typical customer using 500 kwh/month. And that will be short term until renewable energy sources come online in the next two years. That will also lessen the dependence on imported oil and disruptions due to economic and geopolitical events.
Healthier environment, healthier people, cheaper energy.
Win/win.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
Interesting data to support Ty
Cheaper energy. Like the UK?
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
- Reaction score
- 7,943
Last I checked, Hawaii was some distance away from the UK, has a somewhat different climate, and a somewhat different energy input mix. Not to mention that Hawaii is on a short-term planned transition while the UK was shocked by world events in the midst of a long-term transition that may or may not have a definite plan. Is it so hard to imagine that they might have different results?
Like Iceland.
Translation: Can’t show the math because it doesn’t remotely support the claim.
Do you have something to contribute, or are you just commenting to disagree and insult others?
Challenging unfounded assertions is contributing to a conversation. It might be uncomfortable, it might be a bit testy at times but it absolutely is contributing.
Both sides have provided some level of foundation for their assertions. From where I sit, it looks very much like you're just throwing rocks into the fray because you don't like one of the perspectives.
I strongly disagree with the claim that removing $20 billion in subsidies would result in $12.75/gallon gas. I simply asked to see the math to support it and every answer is a dodge. If your perspective is that’s “throwing a rock” then fine. My perspective is different.
Asking for evidence is one thing. You did that, and kuririn responded. Maybe you didn't feel like it met your needs. Instead of asking for more information, you responded with insults. That's where you changed the level of dialogue from adult conversation to simply being a jerk.
I showed you the math in post #270. The selling price of gasoline doesn't cover the cost of the crude oil to make it. Subsidies lower the production cost of crude oil. reduce taxes to the producer, and incentivize exploration. Without them they would be selling every gallon of gas at a loss. Add in a decent profit margin and the costs of transporting, leasing, exploration, extracting and infrastructure and it is easy to see where the unsubsidized retail price would be several times the production cost. Like any retail product the selling price is nowhere near the production cost. 5X is not untypical.
And speaking of unsupported statements:
Still waiting for you to respond to this.
And:
Any examples of someone claiming an accepted accounting practice as a subsidy? Or just another unsupported statement?
Ok, in the interest of not devolving into the political any more than it already has, let's keep this thread open and go back to the original topic: ICEs and EVS.
Are you confused about who you're responding to in the thread?
Not in the least. Thank you for your concern.
So you weren't confused, you just deleted the post for... reasons?Not in the least. Thank you for your concern.
I haven’t deleted anything.
Looks like the political posts have been deleted.
So, again, let's stay on topic and keep this thread open.
So, again, let's stay on topic and keep this thread open.
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,054
Seems to me like many people haven't.... Hell I didn’t even call anyone a jerk.
Here's some good news!
https://evannex.com/blogs/news/niss...the-ev-batteries-we-ve-made-are-still-in-cars
No insults at all just pointed out the lack of a reasonable response. Hell I didn’t even call anyone a jerk.
Agree. Only the one person I was responding to has done so.
Funkworks
Low Earth Orbit, obstructing Earth's view of Venus
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2018
- Messages
- 5,379
- Reaction score
- 6,054
Motortrend and Dodge comparing Chargers:
https://www.motortrend.com/news/meet-dodge-charger-daytona-srt-ev-thatll-kick-hellcats-ass/
https://www.motortrend.com/news/meet-dodge-charger-daytona-srt-ev-thatll-kick-hellcats-ass/
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
Interesting, hadn't thought about Hawaii geothermal resources. Do you know how much power Hawaii is getting or plan to get from geothermal?
Link in post #253.
They are proposing an expansion.
Most of the renewable power generation in the pipeline will come from solar and battery farms.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2009
- Messages
- 5,989
- Reaction score
- 4,097
Ah understand. So Iceland with a population of 350,000 living on a volcanic island really isn't the benchmark for renewable energy costs for the Hawaii plan is it?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
