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.
Well it's amusing how much you seem to dislike renewable and their limitations but don't share the same sentiment about a rather old technological breakthrough (internal combustion engine).
How much government subsidies did the inventor of the internal combustion engine receive?
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
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.
Is the government writing checks to the oil companies or are these subsidies tax deductions?
Interesting and thanks. I'll rep this post in spite of our partial disagreement.
There certainly are ones that are not really worth it, like the ones that powered 1 or 2 mills. like Litte Falls, NY, but the rivers through mill cities, Holyoke, Lowell, Lawrence, Manchester, Fitchburg etc. are worth tapping.
FWIW - many of the old small mill works in New England have been rebuild and are generating profitable amounts of electricity. Some are using the rebuilt 1890's turbines and generators and some are using new equipment. The major change is the installation of modern electronic monitoring and controls that allow remote control with fewer personnel.
Also the Public Service of New Hampshire is still operating major hydroelectric power plants on the Connecticut and Merrimack rivers.
Like the Chinese do? Their country is incredibly polluted because the "market" does not want to pay for keeping it clean. I am all for capitalism but not unfettered capitalism. Sometimes there are things more important than making money and not destroying the planet I count as one of those.
Move to China and make a change...
They will love you for it.
The Scots generate 50% of their energy from wind, wave, and tide (mostly, tide). We haven't put much effort into tidal generators... yet with our immense coastlines, it seems extremely plausible (and better, environmentally then damming rivers).
Dams, serve 2 purposes for human survival. They can be used to generate energy resources, along with trapping water to survive the months with drought.
Without Lake Mead, the SW USA would not be a place to live comfortably.
Directly? Zero in mid 1800s Belgium and France. Go on....?
Zero, that is correct.
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.