Dion's "Liberal Green Shift" carbon tax Plan

[stevoh]

Hey, I understand the concept. Just have to see how people will be able to afford that 'new' washer (regardless of its efficiency) given the size of the proposed Liberal tax cuts. If people can't afford the new high efficiency appliances now, why can they afford them when they're only getting tiny tax cuts, and still have to pay higher energy costs?

How much are the tax cuts supposed to be?

By the fourth year of our plan, we expect that a family with two children and a combined income of $20,000 will save almost $2,500; a family with two children earning $40,000 a year will save nearly $2,000; a family with two children earning $60,000 will save over $1,300, as will a family earning $80,000.

You can calculate the amount of your own tax cut here:

http://www.thegreenshift.ca/default_e.aspx

I will see a reduction of 1300 dollars in my taxes per year. Or the price of a good quality mid range efficient washing machine :-P

So, lets see, we either have the current scenario where energy prices are rising and none of us see any extra cash in our pockets from it (or very few of us).

Or, we have a carbon tax proposal, which does put more money in our pockets.

At least with the liberal government plan we see a tax break. I don't believe that Exxon is planning to cut us any cheques to help out...

[Wilber]

I will see a reduction of 1300 dollars in my taxes per year. Or the price of a good quality mid range efficient washing machine :-P

Really, how much will you be paying extra for goods and services as well as increased personal energy costs because of the carbon tax? You can't really believe this is money for nothing

Edited July 28, 2008 by Wilber

[Riverwind]

I will see a reduction of 1300 dollars in my taxes per year. Or the price of a good quality mid range efficient washing machine

I played with the tool and it appears that no matter what your family income you will receive between 1000-4000 in benefits - benefits that must be paid for by increasing taxes on energy which will in turn affect the price of goods. Buying an energy efficient washer that might save a few dollars on the electricity bill will not come close to making up the price increases elsewhere.

[segnosaur]

I will see a reduction of 1300 dollars in my taxes per year. Or the price of a good quality mid range efficient washing machine :-P

A few major problems with your argument:

- Your tax cuts may be 1300, but you will not see anywhere near that amount of money. Those tax cuts will be offset by an increase in energy prices. You may only get a small fraction of that 1300 to actually buy that new washing machine. (I've actually pointed that out many times in the past)

- While you're trying to save up for that brand new washer (and even after you manage to buy it), you'll continue to pay extra for the energy to run your dryer, your fridge, and your furnace. As a result, your energy costs will continue to go up, even if you manage to replace that one appliance.

I calculated my potential benefits a while ago. While I would receive about a $300 tax cut, I would end up paying about $500 more for the carbon tax (due to my province and home heating method). Net result: I end up paying extra.

Now, a long time ago, I did admit that there would actually be some people who benefit. People in places like Quebec (where they generate almost all their electricity through hydroelectricity) would end up seeing their tax cuts becoming greater than their added energy expenses. But to me, that's a problem with the Liberal plan... its rewarding people not for good energy use practices, but simply based on the province they live in. Someone in Quebec can actually waste MORE energy under the Liberal plan and be awarded for it. Not exactly the right message we should be sending now, is it?

So, lets see, we either have the current scenario where energy prices are rising and none of us see any extra cash in our pockets from it (or very few of us).

Or, we have a carbon tax proposal, which does put more money in our pockets.

At least with the liberal government plan we see a tax break. I don't believe that Exxon is planning to cut us any cheques to help out...

If you believe the Liberals, the carbon tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral". That means people will still pay the same (on average). No more money in people's pockets.

Of course, as energy prices continue to rise we'll still end up paying more to the energy companies, in addition to any carbon tax.

[segnosaur]

So you just made an assumption about my claims, and then says its not an assumption?

Hey, you make some statement (about mid-price or whatever in one post) its pretty reasonable (unless you actually make an effort to inform people otherwise) that you still believe in the statement you made.

I am assuming that over the life of a washing machine you will not see an energy savings of more than 2000 dollars from one that is slightly less efficient. Yes, I am making an assumption. If that number seems out to you, go ahead and calculate it out.

A general rule is... those who make the claims are responsible for proving it.

Some top load washers are now approaching front load in efficiency ratings.

Really? Hmmm.... found a front load washer (a Matag with the same capacity) on the Sears web site that would save you over 30% on energy usage per year.

So, back to my original premise, you can buy a mid priced model with good energy efficiency, even if you buy top load.

Once again, you're tossing around vague terms (like 'good energy efficiency') without providing any sort of clear definition of what exactly that is.

You also seem to assume that 'good energy efficiency' is a black/white concept. Usually it is not. Its a relative concept. There is no such thing as saying 'This appliance is efficient (or not)", all you can do is compare two appliances.

[stevoh]

A few major problems with your argument:

- Your tax cuts may be 1300, but you will not see anywhere near that amount of money. Those tax cuts will be offset by an increase in energy prices. You may only get a small fraction of that 1300 to actually buy that new washing machine. (I've actually pointed that out many times in the past)

I realize that. But I will see a tax cut.

- While you're trying to save up for that brand new washer (and even after you manage to buy it), you'll continue to pay extra for the energy to run your dryer, your fridge, and your furnace. As a result, your energy costs will continue to go up, even if you manage to replace that one appliance.

yep. I don't see how this is different however from current energy price increases where we see no return.

I calculated my potential benefits a while ago. While I would receive about a $300 tax cut, I would end up paying about $500 more for the carbon tax (due to my province and home heating method). Net result: I end up paying extra.

A general rule is, those making the claims are responsible for proving it. I wasn't able to get the tool to generate a $300 tax benefit, regardless of the values entered.

Now, a long time ago, I did admit that there would actually be some people who benefit. People in places like Quebec (where they generate almost all their electricity through hydroelectricity) would end up seeing their tax cuts becoming greater than their added energy expenses. But to me, that's a problem with the Liberal plan... its rewarding people not for good energy use practices, but simply based on the province they live in. Someone in Quebec can actually waste MORE energy under the Liberal plan and be awarded for it. Not exactly the right message we should be sending now, is it?

Well, if the point of the tax is to get people to use non carbon based energy sources, then yes it is the right message.

If you believe the Liberals, the carbon tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral". That means people will still pay the same (on average). No more money in people's pockets.

As it applies to the individual, I don't believe that at all. Depending on your income and your fossil fuel based energy costs, you could pay more, or less.

Of course, as energy prices continue to rise we'll still end up paying more to the energy companies, in addition to any carbon tax.

Exactly. At least with the liberal plan I see some return on the additional cost of energy. The industry based energy increases occuring right now? I simply pay more.

[Wilber]

Exactly. At least with the liberal plan I see some return on the additional cost of energy. The industry based energy increases occuring right now? I simply pay more.

Nonsense, all you might see is some of the money you paid to government in tax returned to you, it has nothing to do with the cost of energy itself. It is just a form of income redistribution no different from any other consumption tax. If most of the tax breaks are going to lower income brackets, obviously those in the middle brackets are going to be paying the freight and will come out losers on the deal. It can't be any other way and still be revenue neutral.

[stevoh]

I calculated my potential benefits a while ago. While I would receive about a $300 tax cut, I would end up paying about $500 more for the carbon tax (due to my province and home heating method). Net result: I end up paying extra.

Ok, I wasn't able to get the tool to give a tax cut of 300 dollars from the green shift site. Even at a million dollars yearly income, you will see a tax cut of $1172. How did you come up with 300 dollars?

What home heating method are you using? If you are using home heating oil, then you are using over 4000 litres of home heating oil a year (more than double the canadian average). How did I calculate this?

(From the green shift website)

An average Canadian household uses about 1,800 litres per year in home heating oil. During the first

year, the Green Shift will increase the cost of home heating oil for that household by $50 per year, or

$4.20 per month. By the fourth year, the additional cost will be $203 per year or $16.95 per month.

So, in your case, 203 dollars per year based on 1800 litres, you claim 500 dollars, 500/203 = 2.46. 2.46 x 1800 = 4428 litres.

If you are using natural gas (as I am), then you are using almost 8 times the national average, a full 26 300 m3 per year!

An average Canadian home heated with natural gas uses from 3,000 to 3,500 m3 of natural gas each year.

In year one of the Green Shift, the additional cost will be from $57 to $66.50 for that household, or $4.75

to $5.54 per month.

66.50 per year based on 3500 m, you claim 500 dollars, 500/66.50 = 7.52. 7.52 * 3500 = 26300.

I believe in making an informed decision, from these numbers, both the size of your tax break and the increase in home heating costs seems an exaggeration. How did you come up with these numbers?

[stevoh]

Nonsense, all you might see is some of the money you paid to government in tax returned to you, it has nothing to do with the cost of energy itself. It is just a form of income redistribution no different from any other consumption tax. If most of the tax breaks are going to lower income brackets, obviously those in the middle brackets are going to be paying the freight and will come out losers on the deal. It can't be any other way and still be revenue neutral.

The carbon tax is going to increase the cost of energy, so it has everything to do with the cost of energy itself.

[segnosaur]

Your tax cuts may be 1300, but you will not see anywhere near that amount of money. Those tax cuts will be offset by an increase in energy prices. You may only get a small fraction of that 1300 to actually buy that new washing machine. (I've actually pointed that out many times in the past)

I realize that. But I will see a tax cut.

But if the price of energy and other products rises due to the carbon tax, you won't be any better off.

And, lets say you do end up better off (i.e. your tax cuts are greater than the carbon tax)... Will the amount be enough to actually allow you to purchase newer, more efficient appliances within a reasonable time frame? After all, you're talking about $5-10 thousand for a furnace, fridge, washer, dryer, and perhaps a stove or dishwasher. If you're not saving enough to actually purchase those devices, then why even bother with the green plan? After all, its supposed to be a plan to save energy, not 'help the poor'.

Now, a long time ago, I did admit that there would actually be some people who benefit. People in places like Quebec (where they generate almost all their electricity through hydroelectricity) would end up seeing their tax cuts becoming greater than their added energy expenses. But to me, that's a problem with the Liberal plan... its rewarding people not for good energy use practices, but simply based on the province they live in. Someone in Quebec can actually waste MORE energy under the Liberal plan and be awarded for it. Not exactly the right message we should be sending now, is it?

Well, if the point of the tax is to get people to use non carbon based energy sources, then yes it is the right message.

I, as a resident of Ontario, have no control over how my electricity is generated. I have taken steps to reduce my usage, but I don't have the ability to, for example, build my own nuclear reactor.

If you are going to punish people for overconsumption, then punish them for things that they actually have control over. I can control whether I turn lights out when I'm not in the room. I cannot control whether that light is powered by coal, nuclear or hydro.

The Liberal plan is basically punishing people due to where they live.

And you really think the right message is "waste all you want... you're in Quebec"?

Of course, as energy prices continue to rise we'll still end up paying more to the energy companies, in addition to any carbon tax.

Exactly. At least with the liberal plan I see some return on the additional cost of energy. The industry based energy increases occuring right now? I simply pay more.

I really don't think you understand what the Liberal plan means.

Being all happy just because you get an income tax cut is not beneficial if you end up loosing all that money over higher energy prices. That's what the Liberal plan is supposed to do.

[stevoh]

I, as a resident of Ontario, have no control over how my electricity is generated. I have taken steps to reduce my usage, but I don't have the ability to, for example, build my own nuclear reactor.

If you are going to punish people for overconsumption, then punish them for things that they actually have control over. I can control whether I turn lights out when I'm not in the room. I cannot control whether that light is powered by coal, nuclear or hydro.

The Liberal plan is basically punishing people due to where they live.

And you really think the right message is "waste all you want... you're in Quebec"?

The right message is, use a non fossil fuel based power generation source. No body forced alberta to build coal based energy plants. Even natural gas would have been a better idea. I know they built them because coal in alberta is cheap. Well, with energy prices and carbon tax increases, perhaps that decision won't be so clear in the future. In my opinion, that is a good thing.

I really don't think you understand what the Liberal plan means.

Being all happy just because you get an income tax cut is not beneficial if you end up loosing all that money over higher energy prices. That's what the Liberal plan is supposed to do.

At least an offset is present. Market based energy price increases see no financial counter measures for the consumer.

[Wilber]

The carbon tax is going to increase the cost of energy, so it has everything to do with the cost of energy itself.

The real cost of energy or anything else is determined by supply and demand. Taxation is just social engineering and has nothing to do with the real cost of producing anything. Understand that governments don't create wealth, jobs or goods, they just use and redistribute what has been created by others and their policies can have a great effect on what those others are able or prepared to create.

The right message is, use a non fossil fuel based power generation source. No body forced alberta to build coal based energy plants. Even natural gas would have been a better idea. I know they built them because coal in alberta is cheap. Well, with energy prices and carbon tax increases, perhaps that decision won't be so clear in the future. In my opinion, that is a good thing.

As they are both carbon based fuels, what's your point?

[Wilber]

At least an offset is present. Market based energy price increases see no financial counter measures for the consumer.

I'll take twenty dollars from you and give back ten. That's a countermeasure? How about I take none instead?

[stevoh]

The real cost of energy or anything else is determined by supply and demand. Taxation is just social engineering and has nothing to do with the real cost of producing anything. Understand that governments don't create wealth, jobs or goods, they just use and redistribute what has been created by others and their policies can have a great effect on what those others are able or prepared to create.

Exactly, the government is redistributing income from this tax to Canadians in the form of tax cuts.

As they are both carbon based fuels, what's your point?

Natural gas is more efficient and produces less carbon than coal. So it will be taxed less.

[stevoh]

I'll take twenty dollars from you and give back ten. That's a countermeasure? How about I take none instead?

If my choices are:

1. Take twenty give back 10 (government plan)

2. Take twenty and give back none (energy sector)

I choose 1.

[noahbody]

If my choices are:

1. Take twenty give back 10 (government plan)

2. Take twenty and give back none (energy sector)

I choose 1.

You choices are:

1. Take twenty and give back none (energy sector)

2. Take forty (energy sector) and get back 10 from the government.

[Wild Bill]

The right message is, use a non fossil fuel based power generation source. No body forced alberta to build coal based energy plants. Even natural gas would have been a better idea. I know they built them because coal in alberta is cheap. Well, with energy prices and carbon tax increases, perhaps that decision won't be so clear in the future. In my opinion, that is a good thing.

At least an offset is present. Market based energy price increases see no financial counter measures for the consumer.

It doesn't sound like you answered his question. Let's rephrase it a bit more clearly.

I live in a city in Ontario. How do I as an individual use a non-fossil fuel generation source? I can't afford to put a wind turbine on a tower in my city lot. I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to do so, considering the noise effect on my neighbours.

I can't afford $40,000 for a solar system, even if I was young enough to see payback in my lifetime.

I have Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals running my province and its sources of electricity. So far all he's done is stick a "smart meter" on my house, which I am being charged for as a long term extra payment on my bill. This means that when his staggered electricity rates kick in this winter I have to decide if after starting my washing machine before I go to bed if I should set my alarm to get up in the middle of the night to put the clothes in my dryer or if I should leave them in the machine and dry them the following night.

Now, just exactly how do I do what you are suggesting? How would I do it fast enough to avoid being penalized by the NewGST from Dion?

Specific solutions would be appreciated.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Wild Bill

[segnosaur]

Ok, I wasn't able to get the tool to give a tax cut of 300 dollars from the green shift site. Even at a million dollars yearly income, you will see a tax cut of $1172. How did you come up with 300 dollars?

What home heating method are you using? If you are using home heating oil, then you are using over 4000 litres of home heating oil a year (more than double the canadian average). How did I calculate this?

...

I believe in making an informed decision, from these numbers, both the size of your tax break and the increase in home heating costs seems an exaggeration. How did you come up with these numbers?

You know, you could have simply read the Liberal green plan... they actually have tables there that show tax cuts for people in different income brackets/family sizes.

I've already stated this multiple times in the past, but I'll do so again... try single person, no family, with an income between 40k-50k, living in Ontario. Result? tax rebate of between $300 and $350.

As for my 'costs'... I'm using natural gas, which should (according to the green shift plan, page 30, right hand paragraph, at the very top, in case you can't find it) add $228 to $266 or so per year to my costs... However, since I'm located in Ontario, electrical rate payers here will also end up paying approximately $1 billion for hydro (according to Dalton McGuinty). Divide that by 4.39 million households, gives a total electrical usage of approximately $227 per household. (And yes, I do recognize that some of that cost for hydro will be payed for in part by businesses; however, they will likely pass that extra cost on to me in terms of higher prices).

Of course, in all this I haven't even included increases to the cost of items and services that might result due to the tax.

Even with the income tax cut, I end up paying between $100 and $200 more out of my pocket than I get back.

And for what, to convince me to use energy wisely? I already do that (putting furnace on a timer, using CF lights, etc.) To convince me to use more efficient appliances? If I could have afforded them in the first place I would have already bought them. To convince me to switch from coal-generated electricity to nuclear? Sorry, I don't exactly have any sort of control over that.

[segnosaur]

If my choices are:

1. Take twenty give back 10 (government plan)

2. Take twenty and give back none (energy sector)

I choose 1.

But those aren't your options.

Your options are:

- Take back 40 and give back 20 (green shift plan + natural increase in energy prices)

- Take 20 and give back none (natural increase in energy sector)

You don't seem to understand 2 basic concepts... that energy prices are always going to increase (over the long term), and that the green shift plan is not going to (or at least should not) be giving people back more than it takes. (Its supposed to be revenue neutral for the government.)

[Riverwind]

The carbon tax calculations is deceptive because it does not take into account the cost of capital.

For example:

Before Tax: Capital Cost: A, Energy Cost B, Taxes: C

After Tax: Capital Cost: A+X, Energy Cost B+Y, Taxes C-Z

It is only revenue neutral if X+Y = Z

People who spend the money on X will emit less carbon but the had to spend the money on capital so they are further behind than they would have been before the tax.

There is no guarantee that Y will go down enough to make up Z + X which would mean they are always end up losing.

A concrete example:

Y = $500/month; Z = -$300/month (net $200/month loss because of the tax).

X = $200/month over lifetime of asset but Y drops to $250/month (50% efficiency improvement).

X+Y = $450 which means you are still $150/month worse off than you were before the tax.

If you want less abstract numbers:

Cost of new vehicle: $4000/year for 10 years (including interest)

Gas consumption goes down by 10L/100km (SUV to Prius) @ 20000 km/year @ $1.50/liter = $3000/year

A tax reduction of $1000/year would allow you to break even on the vehicle purchase if gas was the only carbon tax you paid. However, increases in electricity, food and heat will push you even further behind. The only people who will be further ahead will be poor people who are already living a fairly low carbon lifestyle

Edited July 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

It doesn't sound like you answered his question. Let's rephrase it a bit more clearly.

I live in a city in Ontario. How do I as an individual use a non-fossil fuel generation source? I can't afford to put a wind turbine on a tower in my city lot. I'm not sure if I'd be allowed to do so, considering the noise effect on my neighbours.

I can't afford $40,000 for a solar system, even if I was young enough to see payback in my lifetime.

I have Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals running my province and its sources of electricity. So far all he's done is stick a "smart meter" on my house, which I am being charged for as a long term extra payment on my bill. This means that when his staggered electricity rates kick in this winter I have to decide if after starting my washing machine before I go to bed if I should set my alarm to get up in the middle of the night to put the clothes in my dryer or if I should leave them in the machine and dry them the following night.

Now, just exactly how do I do what you are suggesting? How would I do it fast enough to avoid being penalized by the NewGST from Dion?

Specific solutions would be appreciated.

Its true Wild Bill, we as individuals do not have much control over what energy sources our houses use, its been determined on a higher level based on costs, availability of resources, and many other considerations. These rising energy costs lately have made a difference to all of us, this year I am having a "staycation" on my time off because gas and other costs related to gas prices are too high. That is the first point, those energy costs are rising with or without a tax from Dion, we are going to have to change how we use these resources regardless of whether the tax is imposed.

Also understand that you will be seeing at least a 1000 dollar tax break, more if you have kids or a lower income, to offset the higher energy costs. If only the energy sector would do the same! So the hit to you may not be as large as you may think, take a look at a previous post about heating with home heating oil and natural gas, in all likelyhood those costs will not increase more than your tax break. However, other indirect energy costs such as shipping and storing goods may also rise, so you may end up spending more than your tax break takes in.

The changes you make to your energy usage are going to be financially rewarding regardless of whether the carbon tax comes in, so its not a bad idea to look at conserving energy regardless.

To answer your question directly, there is not much you can do about changing your energy source, other than voting in a government that is strongly focussed on providing alternative energy.

But you can do lots to reduce your energy consumption.

I am not sure what type of clothes dryer you have, but lots of appliances these days have a "delay" feature on them, that allows you to set the time the appliance starts its cycle. Same with dishwashers and washing machines.

If you have electric heat, only turn on the rooms that you are actually occupying. An electronic thermostat (about 40 bucks) can make that much easier, set it once and let it take care of itself.

Its been discussed extensively here, but if you have an old appliance (more than 10 years say) take a look at its energy consumption. Write that down, and compare that value to the current energy rating of new appliances. If you see a significant difference (say 40% or more) in energy usage, then it may pay off to buy the more efficient current appliance and save energy that way.

I have natural gas heat, and my wife and I are taking a two pronged approach. First off, our furnace is over 30 years old, so a new furnace, even a mid priced model, is going to save us some money off of our gas bill. Secondly, and this is where our thinking is a bit outside of the box, we are going to reduce the number of rooms our furnace heats. There are four main rooms we spend most of our time in, our bedroom, the kids bedroom, the living room, and the kitchen. Our furnace currently heats lots of other areas, the entire basement, the office, our spare room, etc. We are only occasionally in those rooms and so are going to rely on electric heat in each room if we need to heat them. So, we are replacing our furnace that can heat 2000 square feet with a high efficiency model that is only going to heat 1000 square feet, the space we spend most of our time in. Beyond the cost of installing the new furnace, the cost of closing off specific ducts so that only four have heat is not that high (less than 500 we were quoted).

So, not only are we going to have a furnace that is more efficient, we are going to have one with half of the output, which will make a real difference in our 60 to 120 dollars a month natural gas bill.

I don't know enough about your situation to make specific heating recomendations, but you probably get the idea.

And these are a good idea regardless of whether or not the carbon tax comes into effect, saving money is a good idea.

[Riverwind]

And these are a good idea regardless of whether or not the carbon tax comes into effect, saving money is a good idea.

Only if the amortized capital cost of the energy saving device is less than the additional energy cost. Even with a carbon tax it is unlikely that the tax savings would make many energy savings devices cost effective.

If you look at the energy guide ratings for a new washer/dryer:

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/engli...ew=N&Text=N

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/engli...ew=N&Text=N

You can count the total consumption to be 721 kWh/year + 828 kWh/year

At current BC electricity rates that works out to: $104/year

$1300 capital cost amortized with a 4% discount rate for 15 years works out to $116/year

Whether the capital cost pays for itself depends entirely on how efficient your existing appliances are. If your existing applicances only use 20-30% more energy then you would never be able to make back the capital cost unless there was an extremely large carbon tax applied to the electricity bill.

Edited July 29, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

You know, you could have simply read the Liberal green plan... they actually have tables there that show tax cuts for people in different income brackets/family sizes.

I've already stated this multiple times in the past, but I'll do so again... try single person, no family, with an income between 40k-50k, living in Ontario. Result? tax rebate of between $300 and $350.

As for my 'costs'... I'm using natural gas, which should (according to the green shift plan, page 30, right hand paragraph, at the very top, in case you can't find it) add $228 to $266 or so per year to my costs... However, since I'm located in Ontario, electrical rate payers here will also end up paying approximately $1 billion for hydro (according to Dalton McGuinty). Divide that by 4.39 million households, gives a total electrical usage of approximately $227 per household. (And yes, I do recognize that some of that cost for hydro will be payed for in part by businesses; however, they will likely pass that extra cost on to me in terms of higher prices).

Of course, in all this I haven't even included increases to the cost of items and services that might result due to the tax.

Even with the income tax cut, I end up paying between $100 and $200 more out of my pocket than I get back.

And for what, to convince me to use energy wisely? I already do that (putting furnace on a timer, using CF lights, etc.) To convince me to use more efficient appliances? If I could have afforded them in the first place I would have already bought them. To convince me to switch from coal-generated electricity to nuclear? Sorry, I don't exactly have any sort of control over that.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

[stevoh]

Only if the amortized capital cost of the energy saving device is less than the additional energy cost. Even with a carbon tax it is unlikely that the tax savings would make many energy savings devices cost effective.

If you look at the energy guide ratings for a new washer/dryer:

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/engli...ew=N&Text=N

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/engli...ew=N&Text=N

You can count the total consumption to be 721 kWh/year + 828 kWh/year

At current BC electricity rates that works out to: $104/year

$1300 capital cost amortized with a 4% discount rate for 15 years works out to $116/year

Whether the capital cost pays for itself depends entirely on how efficient your existing appliances are. If your existing applicances only use 20-30% more energy then you would never be able to make back the capital cost unless there was an extremely large carbon tax applied to the electricity bill.

True. Until the darn things break down and then you have to replace them anyway. Then its time to do some careful calculation to decide what model has the best balance of efficiency, features, and capacity for your needs. With rising energy costs, the value of efficiency over other features will become more important.

[Riverwind]

True. Until the darn things break down and then you have to replace them anyway.

Which is why I believe that industry specific regulations are the best way to promote energy efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions in the long run because the incremental cost of mandating higher efficiency equipment is often a small percentage of the cost of equipment that needs to be purchased anyways. Increasing the cost of energy across the board and hoping the market sorts it out sounds great in theory but falls apart in practice because the cost of new equipment will almost always exceed the potential energy savings. Edited July 29, 2008 by Riverwind