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.
I understand the point but I'm not sure that taxpayers should be forced to pay automakers for what they should be doing anyway. (but I'll continue this thought below)
Picking winners and losers often times aren't picking the best choices. It's the same argument I will make for things like solar development. Maybe we never get there with solar but we never know what developments will come out of the research.
When the government decides to subsidize this as opposed to that, it might have been that which ended up discovering the big break through.
The Wright brothers didn't need incentives.....on the other hand IMO we still haven't gone to the moon yet without a highly subsidized program. My belief is the actual moon landing wasn't the big pay out there but the many new developments that came from that.
Back to your first point......Could we do better by subsidizing results as opposed to ideas? Maybe.
I was just using MPG because the CAFE mandates were more penalty driven. That is what I am always against.
I personally think we went to the moon for one reason: to show the Soviets we were superior. Sputnik scared the bejesus out of the government and they responded with an over the top space program.
I don't disagree with the sentiment you expanding on, however... the secondary and tertiary outgrowths of certain things the government has done.
We have storage devices now. We have for a long time. They are called batteries. We still need to imprive upon them but they do work in certain instances.
Like an off grid cabin.
Of course, you are absolutely right and for an off grid cabin, they would certainly be adequate. To replace large base load stations, I don't believe we have got there yet.
We have storage devices now. We have for a long time. They are called batteries. We still need to imprive upon them but they do work in certain instances.
Like an off grid cabin.
Options, lead acid & Li po
NiCad is an also ran.
Lead acid is cheap and 100% recyclable. But only 50% efficient. So you need to put 50% more power in than you want to pull back out.
Li po. 90% efficient but they burn like... and they cost lots.
I'm looking at a solar shower too. using 55gl drums cheap used once from Coke.
Of course, you are absolutely right and for an off grid cabin, they would certainly be adequate. To replace large base load stations, I don't believe we have got there yet.
You are correct there. About the only good enough storage device for large scale power storage is pumping water uphill. But you need the water and the places to put it.
Is the government writing them checks or allowing tax deductions?
Using my source from the Treasury (FY 2015):
PRODUCTION FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES (active ones):
Intangible drilling costs, tax deduction, Oil and Gas industries, revenue cost to government: $1,495 million
Depletion of oil and gas wells on private property, tax deduction, O&G, revenue cost to government: $1,343 million
Domestic manufacturing for fossil fuels, tax deduction, Oil/Gas/Coal/Lignite/Oil Shale industries, revenue cost to government: $1,250 million
Two year amortization period for geological & geophysical expenditures, tax deduction, O&G, revenue cost to government: $305 million
Percentage depletion for hard mineral fossil fuels, tax deduction, Coal/Lignite/Oil Shale industries, revenue cost to government: $205 million
Expensing of exploration and development costs for hard mineral fuels, tax deduction, Coal/Lignite/Oil Shale industries, revenue cost to government: $68 million
Capital gains treatment for royalties of coal, tax deduction, Coal/Lignite industries, revenue cost to government: $53 million
Deduction for tertiary injectants, tax deduction, Oil industries, revenue cost to government: $10 million
Exception to passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and natural gas properties, tax deduction, O&G, revenue cost to government: $8 million
Total: $4.737 billion in fossil fuel subsidies
Quote:
Originally Posted by United States -- Progress Report on Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Part 3: Current Status of Phase-Out Strategies A. Production Fossil Fuel Subsidies
No actions have been implemented to date on any United States production fossil fuel subsidies. The United States Congress must pass enabling legislation for phase-out of these subsidies to begin.
Also I should note there are many more subsidies I didn't list because this is the federal government only, not including state-level or other local-level subsidies.
Last edited by Prickly Pear; 07-22-2016 at 01:33 PM..
All energy is subsidized. Things get real interesting when you stop subsidizing pollution.
As debt goes up over time in % GDP everything is subsidies. It is the relative need for subsidization that matters. Oil needs less than anything else for transportation. Coal needs less than anything else for large scale power production, give or take a bit. Solar (PV) has found a niche for small power in places not connected to the grid. Cheaper to put up solar panels than run a power line for small applications.
Why oil needs less for transportation is power density for the storage and power converter combination, coupled with ease and rapidity of replenishing power when needed.
Why coal beats all in industrial power is power density for the cost coupled with availability 24/7.
There is also a lot of prior investment that has happened in those two applications.
It has now reached the point where solar PV is in fact cheaper than the operating cost of gas. And the cost of solar PV is still dropping. In fact the real battle in NV and elsewhere is between the utility versus rooftop implementation. The utilities are trying to prevent roof top use while investing heavily in utility scale PV. You will end up with gas as the fill in source for the cheaper PV.
At some point it may well be that solar gets cheap enough in one form or the other to generate cost effective hydrogen and we have a storage and mobile fuel. There are indications that it may be possible to build cost effective thermal solar plants which also provide hydrogen.
I was always of the opinion that nuclear would be the transition fuel to renewable. But it appears the Japanese disaster took care of that. And there is absolutely no possibility of any new nuclear plants without government aid.
Then who do you plan on voting for to get rid of the numerous fossil fuel subsidies, costing over 4 billion in revenue to the government to some of the richest industries in the country? I sourced this a few posts above.
Feral cats are an environmental problem too. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Lol... But cats don't produce energy.... Unless your solution is to use feral cats for fuel.... Keep tryin champ!
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.
