 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Norton
46
« on: November 08, 2012, 04:56:23 PM »
Chris, I know there are generous subsidies for these projects, but the parts aren't really paid for with tax dollars, are they?
47
« on: October 02, 2012, 07:18:12 AM »
What?  No Stairway? No Free Bird?
48
« on: August 25, 2012, 08:16:48 AM »
If you look at the city gate prices on all of the States you will find Gas man to be correct, most Northern States served by Canadian gas are lower than US gas only Maybe that's true. I didn't look at individual states, but Vermont is listed at $5.45 (last reported month) for city gate, US average is listed at $4.32 for city gate. I had first looked at retail prices, since gasman's main point seemed to be low retail prices: Vermont Gas has consistently held low prices for the gas they sell and over the last 9 quarters have been able to pass on rate drops to their customers Well head in Canada is $1.84 per mmbtu and the US is $1.94 per mmbtu I don't know where you got the $1.84. The source I listed doesn't have that info (at least I couldn't find it there) and you haven't cited a source. If these numbers are correct, that's only a 5% difference for a product produced by different companies hundreds (or thousands) of miles apart. There could be a lot of reasons for that small difference. Seems a stretch to say that: the restrictions imposed on the oil and gas industry make it nearly impossible for american companies to compete with foreign areas. (at least without some sort of explanation or detail) your numbers were not apple to apple Vermont average compared to US average. Same product, same units, same categories, same reporting period, same source. I'm certaily not an expert on this. I ws merely responding to a comment that slammed the Democrats for making it impossible for American companies to compete, when a quick look at the numbrs seems to indicate that they are competing well, in fact have lower prices. If someone can explain what those Democratic "restrictions" actually are, and show what effect they are having, I would love to learn more.
49
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:19:21 AM »
We purchase our gas from Alberta Canada and it is delivered from via the trans Canada pipeline. American markets do not enjoy the same low prices due to the barriers(restrictions,taxes,red tape) that are put up by our elected officials, mostly the democrats. I am not picking one side or the other but the restrictions imposed on the oil and gas industry make it nearly impossible for american companies to compete with foreign areas I don't know where this opinion comes from, but for what it's worth, the average residential price for natural gas in Vermont is about 43% higher than the national average, according to the latest figures from the US Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_SVT_m.htmSo it seems like those "barriers" (whatever they are) must result in lower prices. I guess if we blame the democrats for non-existent higher prices then maybe they deserve the credit for the factual lower prices. Of course, I am not picking one side or the other.
50
« on: July 17, 2012, 06:34:19 AM »
all this really proves is that more power plants are needed or less houses which are all electric. Those aren't the only options. Using electricity more efficiently (smarter) can accomplish the same thing, and is typically cheaper than building new plants.
51
« on: April 22, 2012, 09:04:42 AM »
Thor, I was sincere when I said that you would categorize me as a "lefty". After all, I support gay marriage and think that there is too much religious influence in government. I think we spend too much on the military. I strongly support the public school system. I think we should be taxing unearned income more. I think we have an obligation to the poor. I think we should protect the environment more than we do. I think big business has too much influence in politics. I think the unlimited spending by "corporate persons" is bad for democracy. I tend to vote Democratic more often than Republican.
My main point is that I don't think most people fit neatly into any category regarding right versus left or conservative vs liberal, and that's why I think it's counterproductive to draw sweeping conclusions about people and thinking that all "lefties" are alike (or that all "righties" are alike).
I don't catagorize myself as anything in particular, but I do think you would consider me a "lefty". If you and I were to have a beer together we would probably find that we disagree on policy more than we agree. But I think we would also find that we have very similar concerns. I guess what I'm saying is that if we see each other as unique individuals rather than stereotypes we have a better chance of understanding each other. And maybe we could find some things we agree on.
52
« on: April 22, 2012, 06:17:00 AM »
Norton,
You are way to sensitive. The mere fact that you need us to provide you "info on how to think" confirms how far left you are. (I get you were being sarcastic).
Thor It's not a matter of being sensitive, I'm not offended. Just trying to make the point that pasting labels on folks you don't know and assuming that they are all the same isn't productive (or respectful). I wouldn't have bothered commenting if it was just one time. Lots of people do it. But I've seen from your posts here that it is standard practice for you, and it sometimes gets in the way of understanding each other's point of view. Since you seem to think you know how left I am, perhaps you can help me out. I'm confused. How left am I? I believe in individual rights and responsibilities. I think the government is spending too much money and should balance the budget. I'm a lifelong Vermonter who has never taken a penny of government help. A fiscal conservative. I think the government should keep its hands off my guns and stay out of my bedroom and my church. I don't thnik we should have bailed out the banks and the Wall Street tycoons. I'm worried about the federal debt. I support the military. Politically, I consider myself an independent, and have recently voted for both Republicans and Democrats (although I'm pissed off at both of them). I think we have too many government programs, too many tax loopholes, too many subsidies. So, since you seem to know, can you tell me? How left am I?
53
« on: April 21, 2012, 06:40:22 AM »
But you do have a legitimate point there with how the lefties view giving some dirt bag lead poisoning. Thanks for the info on how to think. As a person that you would certainly catagorize as a "lefty", I thought I had my own view about the 12 gauge that lives in our bedroom, but now I'm enlightened and can fall in line with your stereotype.
54
« on: April 06, 2012, 06:22:18 AM »
Any effect from tapping into the reserve will be temporary and will be reversed when we buy oil to restock the reserve. It's the same with the April 15 strategy. It doesn't change the supply and it doesn't change the demand. It only moves them to a different day. People (most of them at least) who don't buy gas on April 15 will simply buy that same amount of gas on April 14 or 16. And if releasing gas from the reserve drives the prices down temporarily, then common sense and economic theory dictate that restocking the reserve will have an approximately equal opposite effect when we buy the gas back later.
Kinda like "Cash for Clunkers", or a sales tax holiday. Benefits a few people in the short term, makes folks feel like something is being done, but really doesn't change anything in the long term.
55
« on: April 03, 2012, 05:24:39 PM »
Thor,
The soldier is a government employee, paid for entirely with taxes, providing a very valuable service that we, as citizens of a country, have decided to provide for ourselves by pooling our resources. That's the very essence of government.
56
« on: March 12, 2012, 06:48:43 AM »
How is it that retail prices are so affected by speculation when most things we buy (food, household items, haircuts, appliances bicycles, whatever) are not? I think it's another indication (and effect) of how "close to the edge" we are in this oil game. If supplies were secure and demand wasn't going crazy, there would be little or no money to be made in speculation, which is essentially betting that things will get bad fast. But supplies aren't secure and demand is rising. The folks who control large amounts of money can see that it wouldn't take much of a supply disruption to drive prices up substantially, and therefore there's a resonable chance that will happen, so they might as well position themselves to take advantage of our vulnerability. In a way, it IS about supply and demand, but it's not so much today's supply and demand but uncertaintly about tomorrow's.
Devaluation of the dollar has a long-term effect of the average prices in the US, but doesn't account for wide fluctuations whenever there is sabre rattling or political stress in oil-producing countries.
Why doesn't congress do anything? Perhaps some of them buy into the unfettered capitalism strategy and others are hesitant to annoy those who fund their reelections.
57
« on: February 07, 2012, 07:33:38 PM »
I appreciate your reports too, thanks and please continue giving us as much detail as you like.
58
« on: January 22, 2012, 10:59:41 AM »
Interesting that the young folks pushing this would think that a hearing test should be required. Perhaps they should also have their hearing tested, but those tests would logically be conducted while they are wearing their "ear buds", since that's the usual configuration.
59
« on: December 21, 2011, 10:51:31 AM »
Besides producing nearly zero carbon emissions, Vermont Yankee is the single biggest instate generator of electricity, provides about 1000 good jobs, millions in state and local taxes, and keeps our power bills as low as possible. The carbon emissions are not "nearly zero", mainly because of the uranium mining. Vermont Yankee employs about 600 people. Fewer than 300 of them live in Vermont. Any power generation that replaces it will also involve jobs. The price that VY has offered the state is a little more than $.06 per KWH. That's almost exactly the same price as the spot market. In other words, the same as several other available sources. it is so unfortunate to see so many people in Montpelier trying to shut down the plant, even while poll numbers show Vermonters elsewhere want it to stay open. Does anyone know what poll is being referred to? At this time, the only “cheap” power that is readily available for Vermont to tap into is natural gas from New England and Canada. But gas, just like oil, is a volatile commodity, rising and falling due to supply, demand, and other factors Uranium, just like oil and gas, is a volatile commodity, rising and falling due to supply, demand, and other factors Renewable power is incredibly expensive to develop and generate Any idea how many tax dollars went into the government-sponsored development of nuclear technology? Or how much nuclear power would cost if the owners of the plants had to carry liability insurance like all other businesses, rather than being held harmless for any possible disasters? The federal government (in other words, the public) has agreed to carry all the costs associated with any major nuclear disaster. It's also very likely that tax dollars will be used for much (perhaps most) of the decomissioning costs, since the companies that own the plants have not been required to set aside sufficient funds for that. Indeed, no one even knows what those costs will be, since no nuclear plant in the US has ever been fully decomissioned and cleaned up. What is certain is that they will need to be cleaned up, and that it will be expensive. Also, the feds (in other words, we) have agreed to shoulder all the costs associated with the disposal of the waste. Again, the government has decided to pay for that with tax dollars rather than electric rates. Nuclear power plants are not required to clean up their own mess, unlike virtually all other businesses. Bottom line, the rates we pay for nuclear power are misleading because much of the current costs are buried in taxes (subsidized) rather than paid directly as an operating expense. And no one knows what nuclear power really costs, because much of the cost (perhaps most of it) is in the future and unknown. We aren’t paying those costs as we go. We are passing them on to our grandchildren. In a business, and in a home budget, the money for electricity has to come from somewhere our state legislators must obey the law requiring that all energy development be good for the economy – i.e. market-based, not highly subsidized, electricity. Only then will we be headed back on the right track. I totally agree
60
« on: August 18, 2011, 04:34:39 PM »
I'm sure hoping to see that first numeral turn into a 2! No problem. Michele Bachmann has figured out how to get the price down to below $2. If elected, she promises to "drill, baby, drill". This will almost certainly make a huge difference, since suspending all environmental regulation and sucking out as much crude as possible as fast as possible would increase the world supply by almost one-half of one percent. If the Saudis don't reduce their production to compensate (something most experts would expect them to do), then the price might fall by three cents or so. According to Bachmath, this would result in gas prices under $2 per gallon.
|
Show Posts
