Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But we need to level the field by elimianting all subsidies and even mandate like the use of ethnol in gasolien and the elimnation of farm subsideies whcih is perhaps the most poltically influencial group in america on subsidies.
Actually its done to subsidize the research of alternative energy.
There might have been a lot of subsidies in the stimulus for research, I really don't know. Most of these subsidies go to production because the simple fact it's expensive. For example solar and wind can get a 2 or 3 cent federal credit for every kWh they generate. Then you can add the generous subsidies most states provide and in some cases the local government...
Electric generation from coal costs 4 or 5 cents per kWh.
There might have been a lot of subsidies in the stimulus for research, I really don't know. Most of these subsidies went to production because the simple fact is it's expensive. For example solar and wind can get a 2 or 3 cent federal credit for every kWh they generate. Then you can add the generous subsidies most states provide and in some cases the local government...
Electric generation from coal costs 4 or 5 cents per kWh.
The stimuls was msotly a subsidiity for special interest whth one f them being public employeees i mnay areas such a reserch funded b taxpayers. Its also the reason that they face cut now rather than two eyars ago as seem by teachers and other such groups.We alos have subsidse a failed reurbaniztion i Communtiy block grants that have been simialrly used in cities on many failed expensive and often not needed projects.Mnay are sold as X cost projects they ballon like the Bston great dig project. I thnikwe will be seeig thsoe days long gone after the stimulus spending brought them to the forefront.
Well, only if you think of self as a shill of mega-corporations would you take my post as a personal attack. But hey, may be I knew.
So you were just babbling nonsense by stating it in response to my posting? ok.. I'll buy that..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Anyway, I answered your question, by suggesting that I do not trust mega corporations. Much less, they don't need "help" if they wanted to venture into research. Small businesses do. And especially those who dare or want to venture into solar, wind and other forms. No?
So you objected to all of the Obamas funding of energy investments right?
You seemed to support it before..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Besides, solar energy promises personal freedom like no other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I do find fuel-cell powered option intriguing, and would love to be one of the lucky ones to drive a Honda Clarity. Solar powered hydrogen generation isn't a big deal either. Honda has been working diligently on virtually every technology that goes with it, from fuel cell to solar panels to a home energy station system that not only functions as a water heater, but as an electricity generator and a hydrogen fueling station right at home.
Sure, we will still be dependent on coal (and oil) for electricity generation, and we need energy for petroleum extraction, refinement and delivery as well. The first step is to reduce the dependency on oil, not eliminate it.
So tell me, you support Honda and other companies getting into the green energy, but not oil companies? Why the hypocracy?
There is nothing free about the Oil business. They are extracting a limited resource out from under another limited resource (land). Just because they happen to get there first (after the government won it in a war or took it) should not mean they get a free ride to profit off of a resource that is all of ours.
I say cut all subsidies, charge them for the privilege of having a limited liability status protected by the government, charge them a fee for the benefit of profiting off the resource, remove most regulations and add in liability for the executives.
They would still have unlimited upside potential and downside, that is a free market, not just one way.
You do realize that the oil companies already pay a dividend to the states where they extract oil, don't you? In fact one of Palin's major achievements as governor was to re-negotiate drilling rights in Alaska so that the people of Alaska would derive a larger benefit from the exploitation of Alaska's oil. Similarly if off-shore drilling is ever allowed the coastal states will derive a large dividend for the oil extracted in the state's coastal waters.
So tell me, you support Honda and other companies getting into the green energy, but not oil companies? Why the hypocracy?
Hypocrisy? You dream way too much. But, going to the point, what kind of support Honda is getting for its green energy programs from the US government? I would like to know that before going further on THIS issue.
In addition, subsidies and tax breaks make sense if they are result oriented, targeted, and needed. What exactly do oil companies need billions for now? OTOH, why do you think that money shouldn't be invested to help business that promote a direction away from oil and even ethanol?
You do realize that the oil companies already pay a dividend to the states where they extract oil, don't you? In fact one of Palin's major achievements as governor was to re-negotiate drilling rights in Alaska so that the people of Alaska would derive a larger benefit from the exploitation of Alaska's oil. Similarly if off-shore drilling is ever allowed the coastal states will derive a large dividend for the oil extracted in the state's coastal waters.
Sure, Alaska is a good prototype. The goal should be to have this done nationwide. I would rather see a good chunk of the dividend paid to the people like Alaska does but it is a start.
They should also pay for the land they lease from governments in order to stop others from drilling, they lease up about 3 times as many acres as they drill. They need to pay up for keeping unproductive leases also.
Exactly! Everyone conveniently forgets to mention the Obscene Profits the Government makes off of Oil!
Sorry but your link doesn't indicate that one way or the other. What your link does indicate is that the "government" derives 13% of retail price, but makes implies profit and again the graphs and charts do not indicate how you would arrive at such a definition because just like the oil companies, gross sales are no indication of net revenues.
The Center for American Progress released a new report analyzing 2008 oil company profits and lack of investment in renewable energy, even while the companies spend millions of dollars on ad campaigns touting their emphasis on renewable energy.
Despite their $656 billion in combined profits from 2001-2008, big oil companies are running ads and lobbying Congress to oppose ending tax breaks worth $30 billion over ten years.
In fact, a CAP analysis of their investments reveals that the big five oil companies invested just an average of 4 percent of their total 2008 profits in renewable and alternative energy ventures.
Big Oil Releases Report Exposing Continued Refusal To Invest In Renewables
Quote:
Big Oil Invested Less Than One Percent Of 2000-2008 Profits In Renewables. The top five oil companies raked in $656 billion from 2000 to 2008, meaning that the $6.7 billion investment by the entire US oil and gas industry in renewable energy represents just 1 percent of the profits of the top five oil companies alone. [API, CAP]
Wall Street: We Like Energy Efficiency, Not Much Else
Quote:
“Oil companies are rethinking whether they should own their wind companies. The return oil companies get from drilling is higher than from investing in wind farms,” said Sandip Sen, Global Head of Alternative Energy at Citigroup.
March 18, 2009 Royal Dutch Shell provoked a furious backlash from campaigners yesterday when it announced plans to scale back its renewable energy business and focus purely on oil, gas and biofuels.
Jeroen van der Veer, the chief executive, said that Shell, the world's second-largest non-state-controlled oil company, was planning to drop all new investment in wind, solar and hydrogen energy.
July 9, 2009
"Beyond Petroleum" has been a multimillion dollar ad campaign for British Petroleum. In it, the company spent the past several years touting its alternative energy plans. But now the oil giant is trimming back the division, according to Financial Times reporter Ed Crooks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
