On 9/22/2010 12:36 AM, DD_BobK wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:41 pm, wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:24 pm, wrote:



On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:10:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:59 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:42:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:32 pm, wrote:
Oh, this also lets the school function as an emergency shelter in case
the power grid fails? How much is THAT worth?

And it provides enough electricuty for 188 homes? That sure screws up
somebody's earlier post about how a system like this compares to his
home usuage! Only off by a factor of 187! LOL

http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/YourBus...CommercialInst...

Do you really believe that a elementary school uses the same amount of
electricity in a year that 188 homes do? What purpose do you think it
serves to post links to fluff pieces with no real hard data?

It is a high school, just for openers.

Clemente Leadership Academy
Thu, 2009-05-14 17:21 — admin Clemente Leadership Academy
K-8ElementaryMiddle Schools
360 Columbus Ave.
New Haven, CT 06519

Phone: 203-946-8886 or 203-946-8884
Fax: 203-946-6635

Grade Levels: K- 8
School Population: approx. 400
Hours: 8:35 AM- 2:50 PM

That was the school in the story you cited, was it not?

Nope. I did post that one as well, but that's not the one in this
thread.

Expected Annual Electricity Generation (kWh): 1,576,800

That is over one and a half million kilowatt/hours annually.

Hardly fluff, even if you can't get your puny mind around it.

I'll leave it for others to judge who has the puny mind.

I just did.

Meantime, a
link with some actual data to back up your claims would be a good
start.

Already supplied. Your failure to understand what you wer looking at
is not my responsibility. Once again, it's that puny mind of yours.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Register this in your mind. A 200KW energy source is incapable of
supplying the realtime needs of 188 homes. I don't give a rat's ass
who makes that claim, it's simply untrue. Why do you think they put
a service capable of 48KW into a typical home today? That's right,
if you could do a bit of math, instead of relying on fluff, you'd see
that a 200amp service can supply 48KW of power to ONE home. If each
house had a mere 1KW load on at the same time, which is actually quite
modest, you're close to the maximum capacity of the fuel cell. Turn
on the AC and see what happens.

They get that number by assuming the fuel cell runs 24/7, producing a
lot of it's power in the middle of night, like 3AM when no one needs
it. Who uses NG to produce electric in the dead of night? Answer:
only a fool or someone who is enjoying a subsidy that someone else is
paying for. In the rest of the world, NG is used to meet PEAK
demand, not run 24/7.

Great post. Simple logic to de-bunk the "fuff piece".

More like 20 houses....maybe.

OP-

Unless fuel cell tech has made some great strides in the last 4 years
(last time I discussed fuel cells with the guys I know at NFCRC)
fuel cell capital costs are ~10x small (25 to 200 kw) microturbine
generators and they;re not exactly cheap.


cheers
Bob

Folks who actually design and manufacture fuel cells will tell you that
they are not yet economically ready for prime time. There are pretty
much two reasons why you would use them. One is you are building a
spacecraft and there is some reason you can't use a nuclear power
source. Two is you can get the government to pull the money out of the
pockets of others to subsidize your installation.

On Sep 22, 7:47*am, Fillet wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 06:49:55 -0400, George
wrote:





On 9/22/2010 12:36 AM, DD_BobK wrote:
On Sep 21, 2:41 pm, wrote:
On Sep 21, 1:24 pm, wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:10:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:59 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:42:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 21, 12:32 pm, wrote:
Oh, this also lets the school function as an emergency shelter in case
the power grid fails? How much is THAT worth?

And it provides enough electricuty for 188 homes? That sure screws up
somebody's earlier post about how a system like this compares to his
home usuage! Only off by a factor of 187! LOL

http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/YourBus...CommercialInst...

Do you really believe that a elementary school uses the same amount of
electricity in a year that 188 homes do? *What purpose do you think it
serves to post links to fluff pieces with no real hard data?

It is a high school, just for openers.

Clemente Leadership Academy
Thu, 2009-05-14 17:21 — admin Clemente Leadership Academy
K-8ElementaryMiddle Schools
360 Columbus Ave.
New Haven, CT 06519

Phone: 203-946-8886 or 203-946-8884
Fax: 203-946-6635

Grade Levels: K- 8
School Population: approx. 400
Hours: 8:35 AM- 2:50 PM

That was the school in the story you cited, was it not?

Nope. I did post that one as well, but that's not the one in this
thread.

Expected Annual Electricity Generation (kWh): 1,576,800

That is over one and a half million kilowatt/hours annually.

Hardly fluff, even if you can't get your puny mind around it.

I'll leave it for others to judge who has the puny mind.

I just did.

Meantime, a
link with some actual data to back up your claims would be a good
start.

Already supplied. Your failure to understand what you wer looking at
is not my responsibility. Once again, it's that puny mind of yours.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Register this in your mind. * A 200KW energy source is incapable of
supplying the realtime needs of 188 homes. * I don't give a rat's ass
who makes that claim, it's simply untrue. * Why do you think they put
a service capable of 48KW into a typical home today? * That's right,
if you could do a bit of math, instead of relying on fluff, you'd see
that a 200amp service can supply 48KW of power to ONE home. * If each
house had a mere 1KW load on at the same time, which is actually quite
modest, you're close to the maximum capacity of the fuel cell. *Turn
on the AC and see what happens.

They get that number by assuming the fuel cell runs 24/7, producing a
lot of it's power in the middle of night, like 3AM when no one needs
it. * Who uses NG to produce electric in the dead of night? * Answer:
only a fool or someone who is enjoying a subsidy that someone else is
paying for. * In the rest of the world, NG is used to meet PEAK
demand, not run 24/7.

Great post. *Simple logic to de-bunk the "fuff piece".

More like 20 houses....maybe.

OP-

Unless fuel cell tech has made some great strides in the last 4 years
(last time I discussed fuel cells with the guys I know at NFCRC)
fuel cell capital costs are ~10x small (25 to 200 kw) microturbine
generators and they;re not exactly cheap.

cheers
Bob

Folks who actually design and manufacture fuel cells will tell you that
they are not yet economically ready for prime time. There are pretty
much two reasons why you would use them. One is you are building a
spacecraft and there is some reason you can't use a nuclear power
source. Two is you can get the government to pull the money out of the
pockets of others to subsidize your installation.

You mean the way they have been subsidizing fossil fuels for the past
75 years or more?

If subsidies are your only argument, then you don't have one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Having one subsidy doesn't make the next one right. I use
conventional fossil fuels and nuclear for most of my power. Outline
where there is any subsidy approaching handing out $6.5 mil for a fuel
cell for too schools for me.

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

Oil companies get billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies, and
always have. How do you think they put the whaling industry out of
business?

Name a couple. The depletion allowances don't count because that is
something that ALL mineral extractors get.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 06:18:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


Having one subsidy doesn't make the next one right. I use
conventional fossil fuels and nuclear for most of my power. Outline
where there is any subsidy approaching handing out $6.5 mil for a fuel
cell for too schools for me.


How about 500 Billion in Fossil Fuel subsidies world-wide PER YEAR?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22oi...tf-8&aq=t&rls=
org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

The "tax breaks" are long standing ones that are given to all miners,
etc., because of the finite nature of finds. It is essentially
amortizing the production input pretty much like a punch press, or
computer or other things.
One talked about lower than average sales taxes. Since most sales
taxes are put on by the individual states, I am not sure how that is a
subsidy to the oil industry.
I also note that the links did not also include royalties, leases,
etc., that the oil companies to the government for the rights to drill.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:40:21 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

Oil companies get billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies, and
always have. How do you think they put the whaling industry out of
business?

Name a couple. The depletion allowances don't count because that is
something that ALL mineral extractors get.

How about 500 Billion in Fossil Fuel subsidies world-wide PER YEAR?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22oi...tf-8&aq=t&rls=
org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

? reduced corporate income taxes for the oil industry
Corp income taxes are the same for oil industry. They have a tax
break for depletion that is given to every mineral extracting company as
a way to take into account that taking out a mineral is like using up a
punch press, computer or any other input of production.


? lower than average sales taxes on gasoline

Sales taxes are a state tax. In Indiana anyway, the sales tax is
there on gas. Some states have a deal where they charge sales taxes only
on the cost of the gas after backing out the other state and federal
taxes so you don't pay taxes on the taxes. Otherwise I have no idea what
the Concerned Scientists are talking about.

? government funding of programs that primarily benefit the oil industry
and motorists
Most of which come from the Fed and state taxes on gas. Also help
the auto industry, tourism industry, trucking industry, construction
industry, politicians by giving them more money to spread around.


? "hidden" environmental costs caused by motor vehicles, namely air,
water, and noise pollution

Hidden or made up?

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:40:21 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

Oil companies get billions upon billions of dollars in subsidies, and
always have. How do you think they put the whaling industry out of
business?

Name a couple. The depletion allowances don't count because that is
something that ALL mineral extractors get.

You don't get to pick and choose, which subsidies "count" and which
ones don't.

Fine, as long as you note that this is not an OIL company subsidy,
but a tax break given to all companies that extract minerals (oil, gas,
copper, coal, iron ore, aluminium, etc. etc.) Indeed is a part of the
tax code that EVERY entity from BP through to the sole proprietor of the
local bodega gets to take advantage of.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Sep 22, 2:06*pm, Fillet wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:54:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:





In article ,
Fillet wrote:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 06:18:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Having one subsidy doesn't make the next one right. * *I use
conventional fossil fuels and nuclear for most of my power. * Outline
where there is any subsidy approaching handing out $6.5 mil for a fuel
cell for too schools for me.

How about 500 Billion in Fossil Fuel subsidies world-wide PER YEAR?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22oi...tf-8&oe=utf-8&...
org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

*The "tax breaks" are long standing ones that are given to all miners,
etc., because of the finite nature of finds. It is essentially
amortizing the production input pretty much like a punch press, or
computer or other things.

It is a subsidy, no matter how much you try and rationalize.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And you don't see a difference between cases where a subsidy is a tiny
factor in the cost of the end product and doesn't change whether the
final product is economically viable and a subsidy that is so
overwhelming that without it the product could not come close to being
vialbe on it's own?

In the case of fossil fuel subsidies, ie oil, NG, coal, these
businesses are all viable without the subsidies. The companies
involved pay HUGE taxes at the highest rate. So, what if the tax is
reduced a small amount? The change in the cost of the end product
without the subsidy might be a few percent, if that. All the major
oil companies are paying 50% of their income in FED tax, after any
special tax credits.

Then we have the case of the fuel cell under discussion here. The
govt paid the entire amount of the project, $6.5Mil for a power
facility to provide power to two elementary schools in CT. It didn't
take a 10% subsidy to make it economically viable. They had to pay
for the whole thing.

In my view those are two very different situations. The first has
past the test of being economically viable and a good allocation of
resources via the free market. The second, has not. The first, at
worst, leads to a minor change in how capital and resources are
allocated by the free market. The second creates a total distortion
of those.

Also, the claim of $500mil in "subsidies" worldwide for fossil fuels
is extreme. Those numbers are coming from proponents of alternate
fuels and they have included everything but the kitchen sink in
them. Things like including money spent on public roads because it
encourages the use of oil, or conjuring up some alleged public cost of
healthcare attributable to illnesses caused by burning fossil fuels.

In article ,
Fillet wrote:


The companies
involved pay HUGE taxes at the highest rate.

Not on the planet with the yellow sun, they don't. What color is the
sun on your planet?
You want to actually kick in here with a fact to back up your
comments?


So, what if the tax is
reduced a small amount? The change in the cost of the end product
without the subsidy might be a few percent, if that. All the major
oil companies are paying 50% of their income in FED tax, after any
special tax credits.


Complete hogwash.
See above.


I suppose you have an explanation for why gasoline in many other
countries costs more than twice as much at the pump?

The entire difference is related to higher taxes. IN other words,
artificial.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:38:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

And you don't see a difference between cases where a subsidy is a tiny

That is why they are making such obscene profits, while at the same
time pleading that they can't make enough money.

They are making "huge profits" because they are big companies. The
average profit margin for oil companies run around 8%, the average
industrial profit margin is around 6.5%. (If you back out the auto
industry, they have a profit margin that is actually less than average).
I might take your umbrage about oil company profits a little more
seriously if you were even more upset about biotech and computer
software where the profit margin runs to just under 20%. If you make 8%,
you are going to make more profits at $100 than at $10. Profit numbers
are so high because the amount sold is so high.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Sep 23, 9:23*am, Fillet wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:13:41 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

The companies
involved pay HUGE taxes at the highest rate. *

Not on the planet with the yellow sun, they don't. What color is the
sun on your planet?
* You want to actually kick in here with a fact to back up your
comments?

I'm not the one who made the unsupported claim. Provide what yu think
is proof that "The companies involved pay HUGE taxes at the highest
rate." *and I will be happy to debunk your "proof". *


OK, they may not be paying at the absolute highest rate, 50%, on all
their income. But they are paying from 40% to 47% of their total
income as income taxes. Isn't that close enough?

You do know how to read a 10Q, don't you? Here's some from Exxon and
Chevron, the two largest US oil compaines:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM

http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf...0April2010.pdf

Chevron made 7.65Bil in income and paid $3.07 of it in income tax.

Exxon made $12.76bil and paid $4.96 in income tax.



And that is just income tax and does not include all the other taxes
levied on their products, eg fed excise tax, etc. Isn't that enough
for you? Or do you want to be Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro and take
it all? Ever take an economics course? Then you should know that in
the end, it's not Exxon, or it's shareholders that pay this tax. It's
the consumers of their products, because just like wages or the cost
of a drilling rig, the cost of taxes just gets added on to the cost of
their products like any other cost of doing business.

In article ,
Fillet wrote:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:13:41 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Fillet wrote:


The companies
involved pay HUGE taxes at the highest rate.

Not on the planet with the yellow sun, they don't. What color is the
sun on your planet?
You want to actually kick in here with a fact to back up your
comments?


I'm not the one who made the unsupported claim. Provide what yu think
is proof that "The companies involved pay HUGE taxes at the highest
rate." and I will be happy to debunk your "proof".
Yes you are. The OP supported it below.





So, what if the tax is
reduced a small amount? The change in the cost of the end product
without the subsidy might be a few percent, if that. All the major
oil companies are paying 50% of their income in FED tax, after any
special tax credits.




I suppose you have an explanation for why gasoline in many other
countries costs more than twice as much at the pump?

The entire difference is related to higher taxes. IN other words,
artificial.

Since you like to ask for cites, I'll ask you to provide some
verifiable ones for this malarkey.

But the biggest single variable is government policy: Some countries tax
gasoline heavily; others subsidize it to make it cheap.
Many countries chose the former. In the United States, state and local
taxes account for about 19 percent of the average price of a gallon of
gasoline, according to the Energy Information Administration. In
England, where London drivers are paying nearly $9 a gallon, taxes
account for a whopping 81.5 percent of the pump price.
European countries have long relied on hefty fuel levies to fund road
work and social programs, and to encourage conservation. The same is
true for some Asian nations, including South Korea ($7.33 a gallon) and
Japan ($6.30) - both of which import 100 percent of their crude.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/ju...ntries_gasolin
e_good_deal_us/

usually don't like wikipedia, but this is a good source since it
points to myriad of others saying the same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tax#Tax_rates
Some samples: Full tax rate is near 55% of motor fuel prices in
Russia. Dutch taxes one of the highest in the world. In total, taxes
account for 68,84% of the total price of petrol and 56,55% of the total
price of diesel.
In contrast, For the first quarter of 2009, the mean state gasoline
tax is 27.2 cents per US gallon, plus 18.4 cents per US gallon federal
tax making the total 45.6 cents per US gallon (12.0 ?/L). For diesel,
the mean state tax is 26.6 cents per US gallon plus an additional 24.4
cents per US gallon federal tax making the total 50.8 cents US per
gallon (13.4 ?/L).

There are obviously some differences related to transportation,
etc., most the overwhelming majority of the differences in the US and
other countries is the taxes.
Also, I would point out that many countries (including China and
some oil producing countries) subsidize the costs of fuel to keep the
locals happy. This further confuses the country-to-country comparisons.
in short, the biggest reason for differences is governmental
policies on taxation.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Kurt Ullman wrote:
This further confuses the country-to-country
comparisons. in short, the biggest reason for differences is
governmental
policies on taxation.

Well, sure. The price of the raw material is virtually the same for every
country.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

They are making "huge profits" because they are big companies. The
average profit margin for oil companies run around 8%, the average
industrial profit margin is around 6.5%. (If you back out the auto
industry, they have a profit margin that is actually less than
average). I might take your umbrage about oil company profits a
little more seriously if you were even more upset about biotech and
computer software where the profit margin runs to just under 20%. If
you make 8%, you are going to make more profits at $100 than at $10.
Profit numbers are so high because the amount sold is so high.

It's well known that the combination mini-mart and gas station (We call 'em
"Stop-N-Robs") makes a higher percentage profit on Beef Jerky than it does
on fuel.