chipmonk

completely agree.

DiEseLjunKy

Giving tax breaks to oil companies is not "handing them taxpayer" money. You realize they pay the same exhorbitant taxes we all do? The breaks they get are from a governemnet confiscating less of their honest earned money. If the government ever does take away their "tax breaks" don't come in here crying about high fuel if you're all ho rah rah for higher taxes on evil big oil. Oil business is like any other. Higher productivity costs, higher taxes - in the end that stuff gets passed down to you and me, the consumer, who pays for it.

patdaly

LOL, with the "tax breaks" Exxon-Mobil paid more Income tax than the entire lower 50 percent of Taxpayers in the USA in 2007.

Something to ponder...........

They paid far more in taxes to the Fed than they made in profit, and THEY are greedy?

chipmonk

i am for lower taxes for everyone, but to say that oil companies, who are making tens of billions in profits PER QUARTER, get tax breaks that other businesses don't get is insane. i don't know if you've ever run your own business, but i have, and every quarter when i have to file, i've never had my accountant tell me that i'm getting any kind of tax break. and to say that if we don't give them tax breaks, they'll charge us more, is blackmail. it's no different than when al sharpton said that if we pass welfare reform, all the people who lose their welfare benefits will just start robbing and stealing to make up the difference- trying to keep the status quo of gov't handouts through the use of the threat that we'll end up paying in the end. the oil companies are big boys, who can pay the same business taxes that we all pay, and still make billions in the process.

chipmonk

so they paid far more in taxes than they made in profit? LOL that would mean that they're operating at a deficit, and their stocks are free falling, and jim kramer will be screaming tonight, how everyone needs to dump their oil stocks.

Iron Mike

PM Sent, Small World

speyguy

Bingo!

Now ask why are they are speculating the way they are. Whether we get the bulk of our consumable oil from the middle east or not, it's still estimated to be about 90% of the world reserve. Turmoil in the region is having a huge impact. I'm not saying that it's the only reason prices are high. Add to that the sinking value of the dollar and the increase in world wide demand, but don't discount US occupation in the region as a factor.

For all the people that are supporting nuclear power, how do you propose that they fund any new power plants? There are currently no willing private sector investors, willing to invest in building new nukes. So, currently the only way they can be built in this country is through government subsidies (corporate welfare). So I don't see how people can be for both nukes and tout about "free enterprise". If the government gets involved in building new nukes, would you view that as socialism? Ew, ick!

ktm

Price per Kw for a coal fueled power plant $3.70
Price per Kw for a nuke fueled power plant $ 0.35

I'm not advocating for one side or the other, I did a college paper last semester and visited the load dispatch office and witnessed the efficiency
program and I'm reporting the facts. Some fossil fueled plants were slightly higher and some lower but the nukes were more consistent.

Contrary to my program of study is fossil fuel based so hopefully with the new scrubbers being installed we'll burn coal long enough for me to get a job at our local power plant.

First time poster, and just a diesel owning wannabe since my company opted to close its doors and relocate south of the border I became a full time student again, working odd jobs to make ends meet. I don't want nothing I can't earn on my own.

CamperAndy

Quote:
Originally Posted by D2 Cat
I've got a friend who works 80 miles off the shore of Angola. He says the cost to get the oil to the freighter is $6 barrel. They built a 2.1 Billion dollar plant 11 stories high, paid for in one year.



I have co workers working in that location (I turned down an option to go myself) but the cost to get the oil up is a little more then $6 a barrel, closer to $20 to $25 for that location. In Venezuela the cost to get the oil up is $10 to $15 a barrel. This is a long way from what we are paying for it now.

CamperAndy

Sorry man your numbers are way off.

More like $0.035 kW for coal and just a hair less for nuke. If it was $3.70 a kW for coal or even $.35 for nuke you would not be able to turn a light on without going broke. Typical residental cost is $.08 to $.10 kW.

BTW Hydro costs less then $.02 kW to produce but you won't see many more of those put into service any time soon.

ktm

I wasn't referencing the Kw per hour we are charged but rather operating cost calculated on an efficiency program that Energy companies use to figure costs of operating each power plant compared to the cost of the fuel it uses.

Construction capital cost of power. Energy costs depends on capacity factors, climate, fuel cost, O&M, interest rates, taxes, subsidies, distribution loss, parasitic loss, internal rates of return, emission surcharge.
Maybe a Load dispatcher can better explain, the point was he said one was considerably less than the other.

CamperAndy

No calculated costs can total more then the end users cost without causing the producer to go bankrupt. It does not matter how the numbers are generated. One facility may cost more to build, thus making the pay back period longer but the overall life time operating cost must be competitive.

Since you mentioned a load dispatcher, it is now a little more obvious where your numbers come from. Depending on the time of day, time of year and your location there are peak demands that can cause MAJOR fluctuations in the cost to your local power company. Since nukes can not power up and down as easily they set the sell price low to make sure they sell everything they produce. Also your numbers look to be relate to Megawatt costs not Kilowatt costs.

If you look at the hierarchy of dispatched sales you will find Nuke plants always come in lower in price followed typically by coal fired steam plants, gas fired steam plants, co gen plants and last but not least simple cycle gas or oil fired turbines. The cost of production is not that much different for these plants but the speed at which they can respond to load changes helps dictate that the simple cycle unit can sometimes charge hundreds of times the actual cost of production.

ktm

The FED EX guy just stopped at my house for less than a minute and shutdown his diesel truck, do they save a significant amount of fuel by shutting down at every stop, what about wear and tear on restarting a diesel truck hundreds of times a day?
Is the fuel saved as justified as right turns only?

pronstar

Engine start/stop technology is found on a lot of high-efficiency Euro cars, and has been shown to impact fuel efficiency...which is why you'll start seeing it in the US as we move forward as well.

Increased engine wear on start-up really only applies to cold-starting an engine.

chipmonk

did anyone else see that they announced the 5 year results from the devices that have been placed in the waters of the world, to keep track of their drastically rising temperature? the temperature dropped every year!