President's Budget Eliminates Donation Expense for Tix

[Lennys Tap]

Though I don't want a bunch of mostly-political threads filling the 'bar, this has been more civil than the average Buzz / Crean debate thread, I'll give it that. 

That's because Crean sucks.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So poor people and the elderly don't have to pay the gas tax? 

That's one of the debates out here with the new proposed GPS gas tax whereby you will pay based on how much you drive Orwellian concept that has been cooked up.  Track your GPS, which goes back to the gov't...they charge you $X.XX per mile driven and there you go.  Of course, many poor people have been driven away from where the jobs are because of real estate prices, thus they have to drive a long way to get to the job.  So that is now being debated in terms of what kind of credit will be offered to those folks.

I just love the idea that the gov't will be strapping on a device (yes, pun intended) to our cars and "of course" will not use any of that data except to calculate this gas tax.  What could possibly go wrong?  How could this data ever get out to people that shouldn't get it....we know confidential medical data, people's grades, tax data never does.   

I can't wait to speculate and buy stocks of these GPS tech companies.....wonder who in gov't they will be related to. 

[warriorchick]

That's one of the debates out here with the new proposed GPS gas tax whereby you will pay based on how much you drive Orwellian concept that has been cooked up.  Track your GPS, which goes back to the gov't...they charge you $X.XX per mile driven and there you go.  Of course, many poor people have been driven away from where the jobs are because of real estate prices, thus they have to drive a long way to get to the job.  So that is now being debated in terms of what kind of credit will be offered to those folks.

I just love the idea that the gov't will be strapping on a device (yes, pun intended) to our cars and "of course" will not use any of that data except to calculate this gas tax.  What could possibly go wrong?  How could this data ever get out to people that shouldn't get it....we know confidential medical data, people's grades, tax data never does.   

I can't wait to speculate and buy stocks of these GPS tech companies.....wonder who in gov't they will be related to. 

I don't see how this is materially more equitable than the  .xx per gallon tax we have now (other than the aforementioned gather of Big Brother data).  You drive more, you buy more gas.  Plus the current tax has the added benefit of rewarding drivers with more fuel-efficient cars.  Perhaps they are thinking ahead to the near future, when we will all be driving electric vehicles.

[Coleman]

I don't see how this is materially more equitable than the  .xx per gallon tax we have now (other than the aforementioned gather of Big Brother data).  You drive more, you buy more gas.  Plus the current tax has the added benefit of rewarding drivers with more fuel-efficient cars.  Perhaps they are thinking ahead to the near future, when we will all be driving electric vehicles.

Honestly don't know why you put that in teal, that is probably the rationale indeed. Especially in California, where Tesla's charger network is quite built up. The state doesn't want to lose gas tax revenue, and a GPS system is the only way to assess based on usage of the roads.

In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins. Government will have to adjust because the gas tax won't cut it anymore.

[warriorchick]

In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins.

I'd take that bet.  The technology and infrastructure just isn't there for that change to happen in a decade.  In order for most new cars to be plugins, they need to be able to make one for under $20,000 (without government subsidies), and people have to be confident that there will a place to plug in anywhere they drive.

[mu03eng]

OK back to the ticket situation, I tried to put a scenario together to illustrate the potential impact.  This is an extreme simplification because I don't have access to all the data but it should suffice.

Let's pretend Lets also assume 5000 people in B&G seats and 5000 people in non-B&G (the rest are walk-ups and mini-plans so not relevant for this simple example).  So here is what the revenue streams look like for B&G ticket revenue, B&G donations, and non-B&G ticket revenue:

B&G Ticket Rev       $3,000,000
B&G Donation Rev       $3,500,000
Non Ticket Rev       $2,250,000

OK, lets assume this change takes place eliminating the donation charity and MU does not otherwise change pricing.  For this discussion I'm assuming 20% of the donors stop donating.  Personally I think this is low but it's illustrative only.  Here are what the revenue streams look like:

B&G Ticket Rev       $3,000,000
B&G Donation Rev    $2,800,000
Non Ticket Rev       $2,250,000
B&G Ticket Shortfall   $0
B&G Don Shortfall       ($700,000)
Non Ticket Shortfall   $0
Total Shortfall      ($700,000)


So the B&G loses $700k and has to make that up somewhere.  MU has multiple revenue streams to choose from, likeliest is from season ticket holders.  Let's MU decides to increase the average ticket price on B&G seats only from $600 to $650.  As a result the 20% that stopped donating but had B&G seats move to non-B&G seats and 12.5% of remaining B&G seats eliminate their donation to make-up for increased ticket prices:

B&G Ticket Rev           $2,600,000
B&G Donation Rev      $2,450,000
Non Ticket Rev           $2,700,000
B&G Ticket Shortfall    ($400,000)
B&G Don Shortfall          ($1,050,000)
Non Ticket Shortfall   $450,000
Total Shortfall         ($1,000,000)
 
OK, well now they have a bigger revenue shortfall, so ticket prices increase again on B&G seats($650 to $700) and on non-B&G as well ($450 to $550).  This moves 500 B&G to non-B&G, but the donations remain the same.  Additionally, the overall increase drives 1500 non-B$&G out all together so total tickets goes from 10,000 to 8,500.  Here's what the revenues look like.

B&G Ticket Rev           $2,450,000
B&G Donation Rev           $2,450,000
Non Ticket Rev           $2,750,000
B&G Ticket Shortfall    ($550,000)
B&G Don Shortfall            ($350,000)
Non Ticket Shortfall   $500,000
Total Shortfall            ($400,000)


So they are continuously losing money or looking for additional revenue streams.  Is this what would happen?  Couldn't say for sure, but it seems a likely scenario.  That's why changes like this need to be understood.


Side note, this would be true of all high major basketball and football programs.  If this scenario plays out you are talking about removing billions of dollars of revenue from NCAA sports and the whole model becomes unsustainable.  Worst case scenario, but definitely possible.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'd take that bet.  The technology and infrastructure just isn't there for that change to happen in a decade.  In order for most new cars to be plugins, they need to be able to make one for under $20,000 (without government subsidies), and people have to be confident that there will a place to plug in anywhere they drive.

I think 10 years is too quick, so you'll probably win that bet.

However, the cost of producing electronics usually plummets in the second or 3rd generation.

While an electric car is a very large electronic product, it is still essentially an oversized blender. Electric motor technology is not new, and it's HIGHLY dependable. Once they figure out how to power these things efficiently, the cost will like come down very quickly. Maybe even cheaper than internal combustion.

[mu03eng]

Honestly don't know why you put that in teal, that is probably the rationale indeed. Especially in California, where Tesla's charger network is quite built up. The state doesn't want to lose gas tax revenue, and a GPS system is the only way to assess based on usage of the roads.

In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins. Government will have to adjust because the gas tax won't cut it anymore.

You are completely ignoring the fact that cars have to plug into something and that energy has to be generated some how.  This is my current field of employment and "expertise".  The current grid and generation model wouldn't support the energy requirement for an electric transportation on the scale you are predicting.  Even if you go to a distributed generation model where you localize the generation(Edison wins in the end!) to the fuel stations you have to build that generation and it's not feasible for that all to be alternative generation.  A good portion of it is going to have to be at least natural gas and some will have to be coal or gas fired.

So your decade plan isn't even achievable in say 20 years barring a technological paradigm shift along the lines of desktop fusion.  The environmental impact improvement would be moderate, not a game changer.

Note, I'm completely in favor of the above model and think we need to move to it.....but lets be realistic about it and understand what is and isn't possible.

[mu03eng]

I think 10 years is too quick, so you'll probably win that bet.

However, the cost of producing electronics usually plummets in the second or 3rd generation.

While an electric car is a very large electronic product, it is still essentially an oversized blender. Electric motor technology is not new, and it's HIGHLY dependable. Once they figure out how to power these things efficiently, the cost will like come down very quickly. Maybe even cheaper than internal combustion.

One issue that will require significant investment and cost reduction is the energy storage method.  Currently the most efficient batteries are very costly and EXTREMELY unfriendly to the environment.  By-product of their production is similar to spent nuclear fuel rods from a nuclear reactor (has to be stored, can't be "disposed of").  So we can get there, but the battery is a technology that is unique to this application and is the real expense of the whole thing.

I'm all for this but there is a lot of work, time and money needed to get it to a scalable model.  We'll get there, just a question of when.

[mu03eng]

I think 10 years is too quick, so you'll probably win that bet.

However, the cost of producing electronics usually plummets in the second or 3rd generation.

While an electric car is a very large electronic product, it is still essentially an oversized blender. Electric motor technology is not new, and it's HIGHLY dependable. Once they figure out how to power these things efficiently, the cost will like come down very quickly. Maybe even cheaper than internal combustion.

A quick summary of some of the pollution/energy issues with batteries that's pretty agnostic.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm

[Spotcheck Billy]

That's one of the debates out here with the new proposed GPS gas tax whereby you will pay based on how much you drive Orwellian concept that has been cooked up.  Track your GPS, which goes back to the gov't...they charge you $X.XX per mile driven and there you go.   

The primary reason for a mileage based tax is because of fuel efficiency gains. The Highway Trust Fund is the source of all federal $ for infrastructure. Everything from roads to bridges to river locks and ports on the coasts. The fund has been underfunded for several years now because of 2 issues.
1) the federal gas tax has not increased and efforts to tie it to a cost of living increase etc. have failed in Congress
2) more fuel efficient cars

[jsglow]

One issue that will require significant investment and cost reduction is the energy storage method.  Currently the most efficient batteries are very costly and EXTREMELY unfriendly to the environment.  By-product of their production is similar to spent nuclear fuel rods from a nuclear reactor (has to be stored, can't be "disposed of").  So we can get there, but the battery is a technology that is unique to this application and is the real expense of the whole thing.

I'm all for this but there is a lot of work, time and money needed to get it to a scalable model.  We'll get there, just a question of when.

The answer is 'not in my lifetime'.

[Coleman]

I'd take that bet.  The technology and infrastructure just isn't there for that change to happen in a decade.  In order for most new cars to be plugins, they need to be able to make one for under $20,000 (without government subsidies), and people have to be confident that there will a place to plug in anywhere they drive.

By 2025, both of those conditions will easily be met.

[Coleman]

You are completely ignoring the fact that cars have to plug into something and that energy has to be generated some how.  This is my current field of employment and "expertise".  The current grid and generation model wouldn't support the energy requirement for an electric transportation on the scale you are predicting.  Even if you go to a distributed generation model where you localize the generation(Edison wins in the end!) to the fuel stations you have to build that generation and it's not feasible for that all to be alternative generation.  A good portion of it is going to have to be at least natural gas and some will have to be coal or gas fired.

So your decade plan isn't even achievable in say 20 years barring a technological paradigm shift along the lines of desktop fusion.  The environmental impact improvement would be moderate, not a game changer.

Note, I'm completely in favor of the above model and think we need to move to it.....but lets be realistic about it and understand what is and isn't possible.

Disagree. We shall see. If Scoop hasn't burned down in 10 years, we can revisit. I'm sticking by my 50% of new car sales (not cars on the road) by 2025 will have an electric plug in, even if they still have a gas tank to extend range, like the Chevy Volt.

[jsglow]

Disagree. We shall see. If Scoop hasn't burned down in 10 years, we can revisit. I'm sticking by my 50% of new car sales (not cars on the road) by 2025 will have an electric plug in, even if they still have a gas tank to extend range, like the Chevy Volt.

I'm just curious.  The percentage today is?

[Coleman]

I'm just curious.  The percentage today is?

About 1%

About 10% in California though, where there is actually decent charging infrastructure.

[jsglow]

About 1%

About 10% in California though, where there is actually decent charging infrastructure.

Then I'll stick with my 'not in my lifetime' bet.

Look, I'm not opposed.  I think electric has application especially in big city environments.  LA being the perfect test market.   

[Coleman]

Then I'll stick with my 'not in my lifetime' bet.

How old are you again? 

[Sunbelt15]

In 10 years, I would say a majority of all new cars will be electric plugins. Government will have to adjust because the gas tax won't cut it anymore.

I doubt that......we love our fossil fuels.

[jficke13]

About 1%

About 10% in California though, where there is actually decent charging infrastructure.

Really? That seems wildly high. I've seen less than 50 electric cars in my lifetime (admittedly Milwaukee-Chicago is not the hotbed of electric cars that CA is)

[mu03eng]

Disagree. We shall see. If Scoop hasn't burned down in 10 years, we can revisit. I'm sticking by my 50% of new car sales (not cars on the road) by 2025 will have an electric plug in, even if they still have a gas tank to extend range, like the Chevy Volt.

Agree to disagree.  Like I said, I'm in this space and very familiar with the consumption model as well as the generation capabilities and needs....infrastructure just ain't gonna happen fast enough.

I'd love for it to happen but there is not nearly enough investment to make it happen in 20 years let alone 10.  I'd love to be wrong.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

One issue that will require significant investment and cost reduction is the energy storage method.  Currently the most efficient batteries are very costly and EXTREMELY unfriendly to the environment.  By-product of their production is similar to spent nuclear fuel rods from a nuclear reactor (has to be stored, can't be "disposed of").  So we can get there, but the battery is a technology that is unique to this application and is the real expense of the whole thing.

I'm all for this but there is a lot of work, time and money needed to get it to a scalable model.  We'll get there, just a question of when.

Totally fair. I honestly don't know that much about battery tech.

I'm just speaking from a big picture perspective. The electric motor and the infrastructure are well established... those are a given (in my mind).

The last hurdle is battery technology, and I think in the next 15-20 years, that will be solved. I don't know what kind of voodoo we will be using, but battery tech. has come a long way in the past 15 years, so I assume it will go a long way in the next 15 years. If there is good profit to be made selling large scale car batteries, I assume somebody is going to figure it out.

Also, just for clarification, I don't think or expect electric automobiles to solve EVERY automotive need we have. But, for the majority of commuter cars, sedans, small SUVs, etc., it's going to be widely adopted.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Agree to disagree.  Like I said, I'm in this space and very familiar with the consumption model as well as the generation capabilities and needs....infrastructure just ain't gonna happen fast enough.

I'd love for it to happen but there is not nearly enough investment to make it happen in 20 years let alone 10.  I'd love to be wrong.

What infrastructure issues would we have?

In theory, I could charge my car at home every evening, right? Maybe I could even charge at work if they offered it.

Where else would I need to charge it?

Is the infrastructure all 220V, and thus everybody would have to upgrade their homes/garages to accommodate?

[WarhawkWarrior]

Good analysis by mu03eng but we are stuck off topic on the gas tax. 

Alright, roads are heavily subsidized,  why aren't railroads? 

[mu03eng]

What infrastructure issues would we have?

In theory, I could charge my car at home every evening, right? Maybe I could even charge at work if they offered it.

Where else would I need to charge it?

Is the infrastructure all 220V, and thus everybody would have to upgrade their homes/garages to accommodate?

The infrastructure issue is the grid(which carries the power) is aging(kind of like our roads) and the generational capacity would not be sufficient to meet demand.  We're working off a grid largely built in the 50s and designed to last 30 years....do the math

We did a test in my office, it costs about $1.50 to "fill" a Chevy Volt, which gets you about 40 miles per charge.  OK that's great, but to get a comparable range to a gas car that would be 10x.  So from a cost perspective thats $15 a tank....great.  Fill up about once a week you are looking at roughly 40 -50 charging cycles per month which is about $60-$75 a month.  Again from a cost perspective that's great, but its electricity, compare it to your electric bill.  That amount a month is going to be an extra 50-70% on your monthly utility bill depending on the season.

So what's my point?  The utility has to generate 50-70% more electricity per household to provide this capability(real rough calculation).  I could describe it in kWh and kW and be much more precise but that gets really complicated for those not familiar with the concepts.  So the utilities need to generate 50-70% more power and the grid needs to support the transmission of 50-70% more power.  We currently don't have that kind of generation base.

Now look at the generation we currently have.  It varies depending on who counts and how you count, but a good estimate of the current generation type is 90% "dirty" source and 10% "clean".  So even if we had enough capacity to handle the new demand, the vast majority of it would come from dirty sources meaning the overall pollution level doesn't really change just where it is created does.  And not polluting is the whole point of going electric.

One of the work arounds would be to create charging stations (distributed generation) that generate and store energy based on local alternative sourcing.  Two issues, alternative sources are inconsistent (sun doesn't always shine, wind doesn't always blow, etc) and how do you size the local generation to meet demand in a timely fashion (who's going to wait 2 hours to "fill up" their car).  Plus you have the time and expense of building up all those charging stations and generation.  California is like a utopia for this type of stuff given the consistent weather, but it's not scalable to the US as a whole with current or next generation technology.



Now, you want to solve this problem....figure out how to transmit energy from space.  

99% of the suns energy is reflected back into space or absorbed by the atmosphere.  Want a truly sustainable, reliable, predictable and  pollution free(barring manufacturing by-products) energy source?  Solar energy collectors in space, essentially satellite solar panels/energy collectors.  We could probably create the right satellites to collect enough energy for the worlds needs within ten years if we wanted to.  The problem is how do you get all the stored energy from the satellites to here on earth?  Figure that out and you'll be a trillionaire and the world will be 95% pollutant free