Taxation model as stimulus to transition to a sustainable heating technology.
My attempt at solving the problem:
-Thomas Dickerson
I took this version of the problem description, (ignoring subsidizing the stoves for now, until we determine more explicitly how that works,
and translate it into a python script that analyzes the total BTUs being burned in VT over a 25 year period while transitioning from 100% fossil fuels to 100% biomass as rapidly as the revenue generated from taxing fossil fuels used for home heating would allow, attempting to shorten the transition period while minimizing the average household cost per year for home heating. It also records the amount of money left in the state fund for the project and how much debt still needs to be paid off. Finally it keeps track of the amount of heating money leaving the state and all the heating money that would be recirculated in the state economy (this does implement the multiplier effect to show the total impact of that money, it simply records the money that does not leave the state). I found that the optimal rate of increase for the taxation, assuming a highest acceptable taxrate of 6.0%, would be a 1.70% increase in taxation a year. Any less than 1.7% annual increase and it takes an extra year or more to build the final pelletizing facility. Any more than 1.7% and the cost increases without decreasing the necessary time to complete the project. As it is, the project completes with more 2.3 million dollars of extra funding.
Here is the source code for my program, with the settings specified above:
Here is a log file of its output when run using the Python 2.5 interpreter:
An update, more organized spreadsheet of the data with more information:
The problem:
We are proposing taxing fossil heating fuels at a variable rate. It would start at 0.5% (negotiably) and transition to a maximum that is optimum to stimulate the Vermont economy and facilitate the transition to a sustainable heating technology (bio fuels). What is the optimum rate of change for the taxation?
Givens:
Money spent in the Vermont agricultural sector stays in the Vermont economy between 2.4 to 7 times.
As of 2005, there were 240,000 households in VT
every household would require a $1500 pellet stove (or furnace)
households in the bottom 25% of income would have the stove subsidized by the state through Efficiency VT
each $10 million dollar pellet facility would be able to provide pellets for 8.3% of the state (12 facilities could cover the state)
The variables:
-
The higher the tax on fossil fuels, the faster the transition can be implemented, thus stimulating the Vermont economy.
-
The higher tax rate will also tend to slow the Vermont economy.
-
There is a lag time between the implementation of the tax, the development of the infrastructure, and the positive economic impact on the Vermont economy.
-
Lets assume this is a one year delay.
-
Vermont currently spends approximately $400,000,000 a year on fossil heating fuels.
-
Assume that ten million dollars is borrowed to set up the first pellet plant at 6% interest to be paid off in 20 years.
-
Assume a matching Federal Grant of ten million to set up the research facility.
-
Assume that this plant can pelletize 140,000 tons of bio-fuels a year.
-
Assume That the efficiency of biomass furnaces and fossil fuel heating systems are the same at about 85%
-
Assume that the heat value of oil is 140,000 btu per gallon
-
Assume that the cost of heating oil is $3.40 a gallon (current average price)
-
This is 41,176.5 btu per dollar of heating oil.
-
Assume 36,000,000 btu per ton of pellets
-
Assume a price of $200 per ton for pellets
-
This is 180,000 btu per dollar of pellets
-
This is approximately 22.9% the cost of oil heat
__Alternate Thesis on the Cause of the Recession__
By Galen Helms
Author's note: While the "Sub-prime mortgage crisis" is certainly a cause of the downturn in our economy, I am offering an additional cause.
Common Sense
As we feel and watch the effects of our receding economy, we need to ask why. I am no economist, but one could surmise that our dependence on oil for food, transportation, and heat is the cause. As oil prices rise, so does the cost of getting to work, staying warm and eating. Foreign markets are cognizant of the United State’s disproportionate reliance on foreign oil, and our failure to wean ourselves away from this dependence is certainly not establishing confidence in investors as oil prices climb.
The United States Congress and President Bush are working on an” economic stimulus” package of about $150 billion. The tax breaks in this package are supposed to get consumers to consume more, which is supposed to jumpstart the economy. The only problem is oil prices are not going down, nor does it appear they will be doing so in the near future. When the news of this proposed package reached the ears of foreign investors, stock markets fell 5% worldwide. If the United States Congress had instead announced a government investment of $150 billion in renewable, homegrown energy, what would have happened in the Global markets then? Part of the reason why our leaders cannot think of a way to jump-start our economy other than try and get us to buy more stuff is because our economy runs on the cycle of mining-production-consumption-disposal and consumption again. This is why after 9/11, President Bush ordered Americans to shop. However, corporations have long been able to keep consumer prices down through mining the natural resources of developing nations, exploiting the poor populations in cities that destroying the land creates, and through a reliance on cheap oil to manufacture and distribute their goods.
However, it is inevitable that the world’s resources will eventually run dry, given our current unsustainable practices. Since we are now hitting peak oil, and since virtually everything we buy exists because of oil, it makes sense that when oil becomes more expensive, everything becomes more expensive. And since we have to spend more on oil to keep warm and to get to work so that we can buy more stuff, we end up being able to buy less stuff. Now the main problem probably lies with the corporations. Many corporations have economies larger than many countries, and they are so powerful that they have become more important to sustain than our government (more important to sustain to our government at least.) Our government needs to keep the manufacturers of our goods running smoothly, but it is hard to do so when they are also tied in with the oil corporations, upon whom everyone else relies. This is why the president and congress (not to mention the presidential candidates) can only offer up the rather uncreative solution of giving us more money to spend.
But, this does not mean that we cannot change things. We have already begun to change things. Vermont supposedly has the worst economy of all the 50 states, and our local economy is also headed towards a recession. Governor Douglas is currently working on his own “economic stimulus package”. Pumping more money into the economy is a weak and temporary solution. Our government instead needs to make an investment in renewable energy, starting with Vermonters growing their own heating fuels. The cost of heating oil is now over $3/gallon, which amounts to several thousand dollars in heating costs per household. This is money that no Vermonter will ever see again. Governor Douglas is also searching for ways to support our struggling dairy farmers. If we were able to buy and use cheap fuel from our local dairy farmers, we would. Assuming Vermonters will burn about 130 million gallons of fossil fuels in order to heat their homes this winter, at $3/gallon, that amounts to nearly $400 million that would stay in the Vermont economy. With a multiplier of 2.5, that number nears one billion dollars. Even if we only converted 25% of our homes to run on locally grown biofuels, that still amounts to around $240 million back into our economy. This amount of money would stimulate the economy far beyond any consumer-spending spree.
It was encouraging to see Governor Douglas stand up to the federal government in Washington over the issue of the EPA forbidding states to regulate auto emissions outside of existing federal limitations. Governor Douglas named the many areas in which Vermont’s economy would be adversely affected by global destabilization of our climate. It was encouraging to see that the governor recognizes the economic impact of allowing our climate to deteriorate. Although the Governor is showing signs of realizing that investing in ways to become energy independent is economically profitable, it is time that he and the rest of our elected officials in Montpelier act on this by setting up a local network of producers, distributers and users of biofuels.
The best thing about the idea of growing our own heating fuel is that it is achievable. This current generation of students needs to step up and show that with a little creative thinking and a lot of common sense, we can bring true progress to our state and to our country. By proposing a statewide biofuels network, we will be doing government how it should be done currently, and we will be practicing for what will need to be done in the future.
Comments (2)
Thomas Dickerson said
at 10:00 pm on Jan 29, 2008
if you want to follow the progress of me asking some math-genius friends to help us with the crunching, the discussion is here, also, I'm rather proud of some of my condensed explanations, so we may want to use those somewhere else:
http://www.unitedti.org/index.php?act=ST&f=54&t=7655&st=0
Galen Helms said
at 10:22 pm on Feb 4, 2008
holy shit thomas you analysis is soo sick.
You don't have permission to comment on this page.