5 ms·
>This was confirmed by the CEO of the project, Lars Thaaning Pedersen, who said in a statement that federal tax credits and a long-term power-purchase agreement
by giarc 8y ago
>This was confirmed by the CEO of the project, Lars Thaaning Pedersen, who said in a statement that federal tax credits and a long-term power-purchase agreement had helped the wind farm “offer an attractive price” to consumers.
Would it not make more sense to include the federal tax credits since they would be at the cost of the tax payer?
- phil248 8y agoAt the "cost" of federal debt perhaps. Not collecting taxes on something that might otherwise be taxed is not the same as someone taking your money via taxes and using it to pay for something. What does it cost you if the government doesn't tax your local church?
- EvilEndures 8y ago> Not collecting taxes on something that might otherwise be taxed is not the same as someone taking your money via taxes and using it to pay for something. What does it cost you if the government doesn't tax your local church? Debt increases -> interest payments increase -> interest is paid at public expense from the general pool of taxpayers. I know this sort of causal relationship isn't immediately obvious but it is there as it squeezes services for everyone else if you don't raise taxes to cover the difference.
- vkou 8y agoBut the taxpayers are beneficiaries of these higher debt payments, through their pension funds and 401k accounts. Or so we are told, every time taxes are cut for the wealthy.
- EvilEndures 8y agoThe research on the subject has shown otherwise. Even if it wasn't: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/trickle-down-economics-is-a-nightmare-kansas-proved-it/2017/06/12/c2d7aae0-4fa6-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... Kansas showed how well it works in practice. And even if you believe neither of those things: https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-stock-market-many-americans-left-out-of-the-conversation https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/517975766/while-trump-touts-s... 52% own any stock, so you are still effectively stealing from the other 48%
- phil248 8y agoNot collecting a tax does not increase debt. Outlays increase debt. If it did, then not taxing Apple 100% of its profits would be "costing" us all a fortune.
- EvilEndures 8y agoPlease read a government budget sometime and look at current law vs exceptions to current law in the form of targeted tax breaks. It is called a tax expenditure. Aka an expense or an outlay. Making up an absurd position that requires redefining financial terms is a poor strategy. Appying your logic, collecting $0 in taxes from everyone does not create any debt because you can simply reduce expenses to $0. Please apply your position to your own life ($0 in income and $0 in expenses) and let me know if your position is a real one. I suspect the lack of shelter and food will convince you otherwise.
- ickler9 8y agoPossibly. But if comparison is an endgoal that number should only be used against other forms energy that are also adjusted for their respective subsidies. But why is direct subsidy the only thing we should adjust for? How about cost the government pays indirectly for other energy forms? Environmental cleanup or other indirect costs for mishaps, etc. If we want a more holistic comparison let’s keep going up.
- c3534l 8y agoWould it not make sense to include the public cost from pollution and adverse health in the price of coal?
- anonymous5133 8y agoyes
- rwcarlsen 8y agoTaxing externalities is a better approach than subsidising what we think might be the best path going forward.
- vkou 8y agoAnd if you can't tax externalities, do you just throw your hands up in the air, and say: 'Welp, I guess coal is here to stay?' Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
- Dylan16807 8y agoWhat do you mean "can't"? It's hard for me to picture the government being unable to tax a product. It seems like an irrelevant thought experiment.
- vkou 8y agoPoliticians in the United States can't accurately tax coal's externalities in the same way that they can't embark on a campaign of land redistribution. In the current climate, it is political suicide.
- zaroth 8y agoSubsidy is more efficient than taxes - based on undergrad economic theory - but it somewhat disregards exactly where the money for the subsidy comes from (at what cost to something else?) so reality will be different. But I will say one thing for subsidy is it allows startups to enter a high tech space and take them as a funding source, ideally in proportion to how well the tech works. Cap and trade can work out similarly (like Tesla selling their credits) to fund the R&D. But the point is you want to do more than just tax the externality, if you can subsidize R&D by startups which fundamentally shifts the curve rather than just trying to move along it.
- anonymous5133 8y agoYes and they can be changed - increased, decreased or eliminated - due to the political environment.
- alkonaut 8y agoThis depends. Mostly it depends on whether similar subsidies are included for other production methods. Typically nuclear power operators have capped liability (e.g Price-Anderson in the US), or are simply assumed to be bankrupt in the event of a major incident, and taxpayers would need to pay the cleanup. This liability cap, and hence cap on insurance costs, is a subsidy. So in short, it’s very hard to disconnect energy prices from various taxes and subsidies.
- godelski 8y agoWhat? Isn't that liability $12b? Didn't 3 mile cost only $1b?
- alkonaut 8y agoYes (although perhaps not inflation adjusted?). And Fukushima $150b. So for a large incident the tax payers would carry the cost.
- godelski 8y agoI really think it shouldn't be a hard line. Large reactors should need higher insurance, small reactors should need lower. One of the things making small reactors more practical is the insurance cost. And since it is a hard line companies figure they might as well build the biggest they can. Seems to hurt everyone involved.
- strainer 8y agoFor the long-term power-purchase agreement wind has an advantage since over that time scale the total output is confident. There might be poor years and better ones but compared to long term uncertainty of fuel prices it is financially favorable. There is also a couple of decades of data on service and maintenance costs from large projects elsewhere in the world, settling past doubts on the technologies viability.