Big differences seen compared to EIA estimate.
Documents (link to PDF) obtained from the U.S. Treasury under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute were released on Tuesday.
The U.S. Treasury Department admits that a “cap and trade” system for regulating greenhouse gas emissions could cost every household $1,761 a year. According to the CBS News story, “the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent”.
This comes in way over claims that the EIA says:
The Climate Bill Will Cost You Just 23¢ a Day, EIA Analysis Shows. This works out to $83.95 per year. Big difference.
CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy Myron Ebell on the accumulating evidence on the costs of cap and trade:
“The bill’s proponents talk about protecting consumers while intermittently acknowledging that cap-and-trade can only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by dramatically raising the price of energy derived from coal, oil and natural gas.
President Obama said during the campaign last year that ‘under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.’ Dr. Peter Orszag, now head of the White House Office and Management and Budget, testified last year when he was head of the Congressional Budget Office that ‘price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.’”
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/17/%E2%80%9Cinvented-here-sold-there-%E2%80%9D-solar-power-industry/
The Ironing!
Somehow, someway, US polices ‘forced’ this multibillion company to build factories “Not Here”. Yet, no where does it indicate ‘why’ a Solar Panel company built in other countries than the US. Well, why did they?
Did evil conservatives say they didn’t want their business?
Is there a regulation that prevents solar panel companies in the US?
To quote:
“We are seeing the industrialization of the solar business,” he added. “In the last 12 months, it has brought us $1.3 billion in revenues. It is hard to build a billion-dollar business.”
Hmm. Where did 1.3 billion dollars come from? Could they not make 1.3 billion in the US? Well, no. Applied technology makes *factories* that make solar panels (yours for only 200 million dollars). The market for solar panels isn’t as significant here as in other countries, so making a factory here doesn’t make…wait for it…Economic Sense.
Why does BMW (a German company) have factories in the US? Because it makes economic sense. There’s a demand for BMWs, so you build where the demand is.
But wait. Why isn’t there a demand for solar panels in the US and yet there is in other countries? Are panels somehow cheaper in foreign countries (Is the price of gasoline cheaper or more expensive in other countries)? No, they are fundamentally exactly the same price. So, why is it profitable to sell panels in Europe (Germany for example) and not in the US?
The article implication is that somehow the US is backward-thinking because Applied Materials discovered that the governments of other countries gives away tax dollars for certain products. I’m sure they’d make Green Plastic Poos if governments would give them money for it.
E.M.Smith (08:54:58) :
So AlGore is my partner in business deals… Who knew?
So you are a “el Gordo Al” pal?…well, businesses are businesses,
anyway you will have to invest also in lithium (lithium “self igniting” batteries), where you’ll find your pal too. The trouble is, in this case, that lithium is found as carbonate and to make it useful for batts it has to be calcined to lithium oxide before turning it to LiOH (lithium hydroxide), so increasing atmosphere’s CO2….the windmills of life.
OceanTwo (11:26:40) : Somehow, someway, US polices ‘forced’ this multibillion company to build factories “Not Here”. Yet, no where does it indicate ‘why’ a Solar Panel company built in other countries than the US. Well, why did they?
Once upon a time I was a production planner for a semiconductor company. Most of our “fab” moved offshore. Eventually, all of it (other than a small mil-spec and development fab). So I think I can speak to this a little bit.
1) Labor cost.
2) Taxes.
3) Land costs.
4) Regulations.
5) Tax incentives.
6) Shipping costs.
7) Smart venture capital firms.
A 3rd world employee costs cents/day or maybe cents/hour now. That same employee in the USA was $$$/hour. (We had plant in the Philippines with Philippinas working in it and we had Philippinas working in our California facility before it was closed – literally the same labor source and same quality. Far different wage costs.)
Taxes in The Peoples Republic of California are a killer. Places that know the value of added jobs will often grant tax “holidays” and/or have very low taxes anyway. We would load up $Millions of semiconductors into a fleet of trucks and park them in Nevada every Christmas. Why? California mandated an “inventory tax” that was assessed on inventory in stock each end of year… If it was ‘in transit in Nevada’, no tax. Then add the 11% income tax, the 8+% sales tax, the property tax, FICA, SSI, the…
Land in the Rest Of World is much cheaper than in Silicon Valley.
Say you want to put in a phosgene and an arsine tank farm. Look up the MSDS on those. Now ask yourself what the regulatory hurdles are likely to be in California. Heck, you can’t even buy degreaser spray that works due to CARB. 3rd World, no problem. Don’t even think about the problems with lead vapor from soldering. Anyone using lead is bailing from the state. (I know a bullet maker who moved to Nevada just because the lead regulations were so horrid and an indoor gun range that shut down after their 3rd signed off an approved lead mitigation construction round.) So if I have a business plan that said “Make anything” I would not think “California sounds good”.
For semiconductors the cost to ship was not particularly relevant, but for solar panels, they are large, bulky, heavy, and sometimes a bit fragile. You will benefit from building near the demand centers.
Finally, about 10 years ago the Venture Cap firms figured all this out. If you took a ‘pitch’ in to them, you were guaranteed to be asked “What is your China strategy for production?”. Any answer of the form “We will build in the U.S.A.” was met with “No Funding. Come back when you have a China strategy. Maybe. NEXT!” It didn’t take long for everyone here who works with Venture Cap folks to get the message…
And that is why when you drive down “semiconductor row” as I have done for the last 30 years, you see row after row of what used to be semiconductor companies and little venture cap startups that are now large empty buildings with “For Rent – Make Offer” signs on them. (In Santa Clara, California, take Central Expressway to Arques, about where Scott heads south. Take Arques north. About Wolf, get back on Central and drive south. That was, roughly, the core of it all. You can wander out about 1 mile on both sides of that too, if you like. The number of empty buildings is scary. And has been for about a decade… See the present California budget shortfall of $40B at last news).
For a long time in the ’80s the notion was that the “scut work” would go overseas but the “intellectual work” would stay here, so high costs and taxes would be Just Fine. This was followed by the spectacular growth of Ph.Ds and the M.E.E. and general M.S. flood from India and China. You can get two decent Ph.D’s in Bangalore for the cost of one plumber in Silicon Valley… In the late ’90s the question shifted from “How will you get H1B visa researchers to drive down your labor costs?” to “Which of your R&D facilities will be in India or China? What are you keeping in the USA and why?” (The preferred answer was “R&D to {foo}, USA to have Head office, to be near you, and Marketing / Sales office for the USA.”)
Hope that clarifies things for you…
But the good news it that there is no traffic jam at “rush hour” anymore. Just a few months ago I did 65mph+ down I-85 between 280 and 101 at 8am. Before it was dead halt and creep 20 feet. Halt. Creep. No workers, no problem…
Nogw (12:01:05) : you will have to invest also in lithium (lithium “self igniting” batteries), where you’ll find your pal too.
From time to time I hold one of the two major Lithium miners in the world. FMC is one, but SQM is the more important. I presently hold some indirectly as a part of the Chili Fund CH (I’m doing more ‘broad baskets’ now and less individual stocks. It’s easier and the charts are more predictable.) Both FMC and SQM are presently having up runs, but the RSI indicator is approaching 80 so it is not a particularly good time to “enter” a trade. Check it in about 2 weeks.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/choosing-a-stock-entry-point/
As you pointed out, the lithium comes from carbonates, almost exclusively from the high desert dry lake beds behind the mountains of the Pacific west coast of N and S America. There are not a lot of dry lake beds and not much lithium…
And that is one of the major problems with the whole windmills, solar cells, stored energy, electric cars green model. Do the math on the quantity of copper (PCU and FCX of which I’m holding PCU at present), lithium, and other battery metals needed. It just doesn’t work for the size they want (and they are against mining too… go figure…)
Heck, just the added demand for lead for batteries on cheap Chinese electric bikes drove a spike in lead prices (ticker LD) that is still climbing. Even in the face of dead car sales. Think about it…
So yeah, this cap and trade / eCar fantasy will likely be a big FUBAR for the US economy. But it will do wonders for copper, lead, lithium and related stocks.
I don’t need to like someone to know when they have the clout to be a market maker and invest along side them… And I can know they are wrong and still recognize that important people believe them. (The phrase “useful idiots” springs unbidden to mind…)
E.M. Smith please see my comment to you today at 6:18:40
David (06:18:40) :
CALLING E.M. SMITH
I hear you are an economist and I would greatly appreciate your imput on this question.
Economist by education. Computer guy as a historical profession. Stock trader by choice. Polymath by genetic accident.
It is cogent to point out the the increased bio-mass of the earth appears to be the result of a lineal symbiotic relationship with increasing CO2,
It isn’t quite linear. There is a dramatic initial rise in growth rates, then it levels off at about 2000 ppm CO2. Roughly parabolic asymptotic to about 2500ppm with zero at about 100 ppm (plants can not suck in CO2 at under 100 ppm and stop growth, by and large).
while the negative effect of any warming from increasing CO2, decreases exponentially. The benefit is, for a time at least, nearly lineal, the negative decreases exponentially.
The initial benefit is non-linear upward.
About 75% of the warming expected to happen from a doubling of CO2 should have already occurred. Therefore the benefits of the finale doubling should far outweigh the negative of a litttle additional warming.
BINGO! I would estimate the “ideal level” at about 500 to 1000 ppm.
Due to the benefit of increased CO2 we (the earth) currently produce a crop yeild that formerly would have required at least 10% more water.
Um, I think it is closer to 20% than 10% yield increase.
What is the economic value of this benefit.? I would love to have, say a Ross Mckitrick (or an E.M. Smith) do a study on this. (-:
Unfortunately, I’m not one of those folks who like to make things up. To do such an analysis you must ask what is the economic worth of the millions of lives not lost to starvation? The wars avoided due to enough food? The added IQ among the billions who got good nutrition rather than having brain stunting from malnutrition. I am unwilling to put prices on those things.
If you do, you will end up with many trillions of dollars for any reasonable guess, and IMHO, $Trillions are not enough.
For simply the economic value of the increased production, take world food and fiber production and ask “What is 10 to 20% of that value?”
For example, wheat:
http://nue.okstate.edu/crop_information/world_wheat_production.htm
gives world wheat at 549,433,727 metric tons. So about 54,943,372 (to double that) would be due to CO2 enrichment. Wheat runs about 36 to 37 bu / ton (varies with variety and moisture) and is selling for about $4.30 / bu. Now do the math and multiply those three things.
I get: $8,623,362,235.4 so call it about $8.6 Billion for wheat alone.
Repeat that exercise for all the various grains, legumes, vegetable crops, trees, … (rice and corn are in the link provided. Rice is about the same as wheat, corn is 637 MMt but sells for less. I’d roughly guess they are about the same as wheat. Call it about $24 Billion all told for the three.)
It would take a fair amount of work to run through all the various crops and make a final number, but that gives you an idea.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x1607e/X1607E09.htm#P3551_50969
puts world consumption of ’roundwood’ at about 1.8 Million Thousand cubic meters; but it would take some assumptions to put an average price per cubic meter on that. Eyeballing this chart:
http://www.globalwood.org/market/timber_prices_2009/aaw20090901.htm
it looks like about 300 to 400 Euro per cu-m. so 0.18 million thousand x 350 = 63000000000 or about 63 Billion Euro of added round wood values.
I’ll leave the rest of the products as an exercise for the students… unless someone wants to pay me to do the work. (i.e. I have other things to do unless folks really want a full report and are willing to provide enough beer and red wine to make it worth my while. Preferably in a beach cabana on a South American shore 😉
Suffice it to say that the total will be large and measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars place. Though it could be double that.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img23.html
http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/img24.html
David (13:39:01) :
E.M. Smith please see my comment to you today at 6:18:40
I did reply, but had “too many links” and that tosses it into the SPAM queue. The moderators need a little more time to find postings there and pull them back. I think “6” is the magic number here (it is a tunable parameter to wordpress).
I see it is “up” now.
E.M.Smith
Dear Mr. Smith, thank you for your detailed response. I knew I could count on you to provide greater insight. I purposely understated the numbers in regard to increased biomass growth because when I guesstimate I like to understate.
To the basic assumptions you stated we would have to assume that without the benefit of the increase in CO2 the cost of every food would be greater then it is currently due to the law of supply and demand. This would, I think, add significantly to your numbers and would increase the price of every commodity in every part of the economy that uses resources that are also used in farming. Your point that this increased production very likely has prevented more then one war is of course extremely valid.
Of course we have to (if we are pro carbon tax) add the value of millions of tons of carbon that are absorbed by this increased biomass. (A negative feedback rarely calculated) We would have to include the carbon storage of the increased biomass in the oceans also. As mentioned the benefit will continue to increase while the warming decrease.
Yes indeed, you should be well paid to provide a detailed report on this. Unfortunately I (ex-wife, four children) could afford no more then a domestic beer. (-: Hum? Perhaps Mr Mckitrick could encourage a graduate student to do a thesis on this. Do you have his number?
Seriously such a study would generate a lot of publicity. Money still talks in the US of A.
Jeff Alberts (20:47:35) :
It gets even more confusing. IIRC, in the UK a billion is a U.S. trillion. A UK trillion is a million X a million X a million. Here, it’s a million X a million. A U.S. trillion is a million times smaller.
Now, can someone please explain shillings, crowns, bobs, farthings, sovereigns, quids, guineas, florins, etc.? That’s something I can not comprehend.
Actually no. For matters of finance at least we moved to a billion being one thousand million over thirty years ago.
As for that wonderful money we used to have there were 12 pennies to the shilling and twenty shillings to the pound. In coins a farthing was a quarter of a penny, a happn’y half a penny, three pennies thrupenny, a groat four pennies but long since gone even then, sixpence was a tanner, a bob one shilling, a florin two shillings, a half crown two shillings and sixpence [aka half a dollar or two and a kick], a crown, seldom used but extant, five shillings: and a guinea one pound and one shilling: but also long gone.
A sovereign was a gold coin worth one pound, until the abolition of the gold standard, and also known by many names from a sov to a jimmy o’ goblin. They are still minted today: but it will cost you a lot more than a pound to buy one.
A pound was and still is often called a quid.
Hope this helps.
Kindest Regards
Thank you, a jones.
I also found a really comprehensive page that tells me more than I ever wanted to know about the strange [to US readers] and wonderful British money system prior to decimalization: click
Tanners, groats, foonts, it’s all there and more.
Smokey (18:04:10) :
Jeff Alberts (20:47:35) :
Actually one trillion would be 1000 billion. But really this is splitting hairs. If someone cannot comprehend 1 trillion then they’re not going to comprehend 1000 billion. To me that kind of notation is more confusing.
It gets even more confusing. IIRC, in the UK a billion is a U.S. trillion. A UK trillion is a million X a million X a million. Here, it’s a million X a million. A U.S. trillion is a million times smaller.
Try here:
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/billion?view=uk
Where they make the interesting observation that both systems were actually invented by the French! Ever wonder what a milliard would be? How about a billiard? (No, not the table game…)
E.M. Smith,
Thanks for that interesting link:
The fact that the French invented the system explains a lot. Possibly everything.
As Churchill pointed out, we [US/UK] are
joinedseparated by a common language.[Also, I always enjoy E.M. Smith’s interesting posts.]