• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Wants Research to Wean Vehicles off Oil.....

Right after I posted this my mother called to tell me her neighbor just got fined bigtime by the Sacto Water Police for watering his lawn on the wrong day.
 
No, the technology which lead to the internet was developed in the 60s. Telenet was commercially viable in 1974 was was quite widely used from its inception.

And we aren't going to get into a debate about nuclear because like you said, it would be quite an argument. All I will say is this, renewable energy sources receive 5 times more dollars per kilowatt hours generated in subsidies then nuclear does.

Which Energy Source Receives the Largest Subsidy? | Clearing the Air | NCPA.org

Agreed, but telnet becoming commercially available was as a result of private capitol investment, not government investment. That was my point. Though the DARPANET was initially used to inspire and transport, the internet would have been very confined if it used that system and was almost immediately switched to using the private phone system infrastructure.

Handy chart, thanks. Shows what we've long known - the only commercially viable alternative to oil at present is hydro. The rest are orders more expensive.
 
It does when you take into consideration that all this R&D isn't going to be free. The money has to come from someplace. What happens when alternative energy is never profitable and the government runs out of money to pay for it? Profitability will mean everything, at that point.

How expensive do you think gasoline would be if the Federal government stopped subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $15.6 billion per year?
 
How expensive do you think gasoline would be if the Federal government stopped subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $15.6 billion per year?

Maybe a couple pennies more. Now put the shoe on the other foot, how expensive do you think wind and solar power would be if the government stopped subsidizing it?
 
How expensive do you think gasoline would be if the Federal government stopped subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $15.6 billion per year?

How much of that $15.6 billion a year is recovered in taxes at the pump?
 
Maybe a couple pennies more. Now put the shoe on the other foot, how expensive do you think wind and solar power would be if the government stopped subsidizing it?

Why would/should the government stop subsidizing it? It still subsidizes coal and natural gas even though they are supposedly cheaper. The "cheap" cost of fossil fuels is only comparatively inexpensive because the government makes it so. It would be no different for alternative energy.
 
How expensive do you think gasoline would be if the Federal government stopped subsidizing oil companies to the tune of $15.6 billion per year?

Shouldn't matter, since--according to all the libbis--supply and demand doesn't appky to gas prices.
 
Why would/should the government stop subsidizing it? It still subsidizes coal and natural gas even though they are supposedly cheaper. The "cheap" cost of fossil fuels is only comparatively inexpensive because the government makes it so. It would be no different for alternative energy.

That is absolutely false. Per kilowatt-hour, natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear receive under 20% of the subsidies as alternative energy sources. Maybe you should get some facts.

http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/which-energy-source-receives-the-largest-subsidy/
 
Why would/should the government stop subsidizing it? It still subsidizes coal and natural gas even though they are supposedly cheaper. The "cheap" cost of fossil fuels is only comparatively inexpensive because the government makes it so. It would be no different for alternative energy.

Is our government controlling the world's fossil fuel markets? I'm not sure I could or would agree with your premise...
 
Shouldn't matter, since--according to all the libbis--supply and demand doesn't appky to gas prices.

One barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil only produces 19 gallons of gasoline. The cost of oil per barrel is currently $109. The average cost of gasoline per gallon, minus average state, local, and federal taxes, is $3.36. So, an oil company gets $63.84 for a barrel of oil that cost them $109 and that isn't even subtracting the costs of transporting the oil, refining it, distributing it, and all of the labor involved. Producing gasoline isn't even remotely profitable for an oil company unless the government is paying for it, but, fortunately there are other things they produce with it (plastics, petrochemicals, etc). Supply and demand doesn't matter in this case because no businessman in their right mind would spend well over $109 for a product people will only pay $63.84 for, no matter how abundant it is or how many people want it. If people want to complain about the cost of alternative fuels then they should bear in mind the fact that the only thing standing between gasoline production and the economic abyss is a package of $15.6 billion in government subsidies. The oil companies wouldn't even bother with it because it isn't profitable.
 
LEMONT, Ill. — President Barack Obama is pushing Congress to authorize $200 million a year for research into clean energy technologies that can wean automobiles off oil.

Obama proposed the idea of an energy security trust last month in his State of the Union address, but he was putting a price tag on the idea during a trip Friday to the Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago — $2 billion over 10 years. The White House said the research would be paid for with revenue from federal oil and gas leases on offshore drilling and would not add to the deficit.

The money would fund research on "breakthrough" technologies such as batteries for electric cars and biofuels made from switch grass or other materials. Researchers also would look to improve use of natural gas as a fuel for cars and trucks.

White House officials said the president's proposal would not require expansion of drilling to federal lands or water where it is now prohibited. Instead, they are counting on increased production from existing sites, along with efficiencies from an administration plan to streamline drilling permits. The government collects more than $6 billion a year in royalties from production on federal lands and waters.

Obama's push for the energy trust came as the Environmental Protection Agency released a new report Friday indicating that fuel economy standards rose last year by 1.4 miles per gallon — the largest annual increase since EPA started keeping track. The agency said the improvement was due to better availability of high-performing cars and more options for consumers.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers suggested that rather than encouraging research on fuel-efficient cars, the government should focus on making diverse fuels more available and improving transportation infrastructure.

Argonne is one of the Energy Department's largest national laboratories for scientific and engineering research, staffed by more than 1,250 scientists and engineers. White House officials said it was chosen as the site of the president's speech because of its tradition of research into vehicle technologies.....snip~

Obama wants research to wean vehicles off oil - Americas - Stripes
By MATTHEW DALY and NEDRA PICKLER The Associated Press <<<<<More here!

We did hear Obama say about taking care of infrastructure. So why isn't he listening to the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers on that point. I don't have a problem with Government State, local, and Fed, moving their Vehicles to natural gas. Anybody else? Thoughts?

Obama is an epic idiot. May as well power cars with nuclear cell reactors.

It wouldn't shock me if the dunce started talking about developing free energy.

He's just promoting industries..

"Show me the the money and the votes and I'll show you federal contracts and the destruction of your rivals"

It's like the old AC/DC argument - Obamafool is trying to electrocute and elephant... (of course progressives think I'm talking about 70's rock music).
 
One barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil only produces 19 gallons of gasoline. The cost of oil per barrel is currently $109. The average cost of gasoline per gallon, minus average state, local, and federal taxes, is $3.36. So, an oil company gets $63.84 for a barrel of oil that cost them $109 and that isn't even subtracting the costs of transporting the oil, refining it, distributing it, and all of the labor involved. Producing gasoline isn't even remotely profitable for an oil company unless the government is paying for it, but, fortunately there are other things they produce with it (plastics, petrochemicals, etc). Supply and demand doesn't matter in this case because no businessman in their right mind would spend well over $109 for a product people will only pay $63.84 for, no matter how abundant it is or how many people want it. If people want to complain about the cost of alternative fuels then they should bear in mind the fact that the only thing standing between gasoline production and the economic abyss is a package of $15.6 billion in government subsidies. The oil companies wouldn't even bother with it because it isn't profitable.
there are just so many errors in this post, sorry I have to point that out.

First of all, where do you get $109 a barrel from??? BRENT crude is $109 today, and very few American refiners would buy any crude referenced to Brent at market when they could pay the NYMEX price for WTI from a trader of $93. Reality is, most refineries buy from mid stream buyers or at the wellhead, where crude is discounted anywhere from a few dollars to $30 (this month's posted for WY heavy sour is $62 at the wellhead) or even more (for Alberta dilbit for instance). You got your input costs way wrong.

Secondly: there is no fixed relationship between how much gasoline comes from a barrel. Different crudes have different yields from simple refineries, and more modern refineries with a high Nelsen index (of complexity) can make what market demands from almost any feedstock. In fact, with all of the crackate, reformate and alkylates in reflux, you can end up with MORE than 42 gals of product from a barrel of crude. Gasoline is also hardly the only product from a refinery.

$15 Bn would be not even a drop in the bucket when you consider that the US uses 19million barrels PER DAY of petroleum products, or 6.9 BILLION barrels per year worth nearly $1 TRILLION per year. IF thee was such a "subsidy", it would amount to 1.5%. However, this number that is tossed around with no reference is for ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION on capital projects and equipment. It doesn't SAVE the oil companies a penny as the depreciation period is just made shorter. There is no direct "subsidy". Even to gain the advantage of the accelerated depreciation, they have to SPEND the money in capital equipment and projects to gain that.

So, all that in mind: oil companies do indeed make money selling gasoline - even without any government subsidies. But, it no easy way to earn a buck. You might have noticed that there hasn't been a new refinery built since 1976, the ones that exist have been very extensively upgraded to meet modern emissions requirements for the plants themselves and the fuels that they make, and the ones on the East coast that once used Brent indexed crudes (when the price was similar to US oil) are now closing left and right.
 
EROEI. Research can improve that marginally.

We can't run the global economy and feed 8+ billion people on alternative forms energy charged into batteries, any better than one could be a body-builder eating nothing but celery. Yes, there are calories in celery. No, an elite athlete cannot sustain on it. It's folly.

That's simply your opinion, and it doesn't stand up to reality. We are supplying more of our energy everyday from the sun, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.
 
That's simply your opinion, and it doesn't stand up to reality.

Reality is that we currently have relatively abundant fossil fuels. What I'm talking about is a future reality in which fossil fuels are not abundant. What you seem to be talking about is a fantasy.

We are supplying more of our energy everyday from the sun, wind, hydroelectric, and nuclear power.

And no energy exists which feeds 8+ billion people on electrical currents from alternative energy sources.

Our agricultural methods collapse without fossil fuels. Global freight screeches to a halt. Many billions of people cannot be sustained in a world without abundant fossil fuels. Investing in a fantasy doesn't make the fantasy a reality.
 
O

None of those took 50 years of funding with nothing to show for it.

We are still funding nuclear energy, the internet, and the petro companies. And what do you mean nothing to show for it?

"Arizona has the potential within 30 years to not only produce enough clean energy to meet the electricity needs of every resident and business within the state, but to also export this energy throughout the nation, without using any fossil fuels.

How do we do this? By adapting an Arizona Clean Energy Vision that maintains current levels of nuclear and hyrdroelectric generation while expanding the use of solar and wind technologies. Enactment of this vision holds the promise for true transformation of our environment and economy.

The Arizona Clean Energy Vision is based on a balanced energy portfolio that by 2040 would comprise 79 percent solar, 14 percent wind, 4 percent hydroelectric and 3 percent nuclear.

This formula would create sustainable jobs, attract new high-wage industries, and make the state a more attractive place to live, work and visit.

It would also greatly reduce demand for water resources because clean-energy production requires vastly less water than energy produced from fossil fuel.

Arizona obtains about two gigawatts of its electrical power from nuclear generation and three gigawatts from hydroelectric generation. While these would remain constant, wind and solar energy would increase significantly."
Wind and solar, plus hydro and nuclear power, will fuel clean-energy future
 
Why not pay down the deficit with that $2 billion?

When i hear these types of claims i cannot think back to the hypocrisy when the left wants to raise taxes.. You know the whole line "only it only brings in 'x' amount, thats not even close to enough"
 
there are just so many errors in this post, sorry I have to point that out.

First of all, where do you get $109 a barrel from??? BRENT crude is $109 today, and very few American refiners would buy any crude referenced to Brent at market when they could pay the NYMEX price for WTI from a trader of $93. Reality is, most refineries buy from mid stream buyers or at the wellhead, where crude is discounted anywhere from a few dollars to $30 (this month's posted for WY heavy sour is $62 at the wellhead) or even more (for Alberta dilbit for instance). You got your input costs way wrong.

Secondly: there is no fixed relationship between how much gasoline comes from a barrel. Different crudes have different yields from simple refineries, and more modern refineries with a high Nelsen index (of complexity) can make what market demands from almost any feedstock. In fact, with all of the crackate, reformate and alkylates in reflux, you can end up with MORE than 42 gals of product from a barrel of crude. Gasoline is also hardly the only product from a refinery.

$15 Bn would be not even a drop in the bucket when you consider that the US uses 19million barrels PER DAY of petroleum products, or 6.9 BILLION barrels per year worth nearly $1 TRILLION per year. IF thee was such a "subsidy", it would amount to 1.5%. However, this number that is tossed around with no reference is for ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION on capital projects and equipment. It doesn't SAVE the oil companies a penny as the depreciation period is just made shorter. There is no direct "subsidy". Even to gain the advantage of the accelerated depreciation, they have to SPEND the money in capital equipment and projects to gain that.

So, all that in mind: oil companies do indeed make money selling gasoline - even without any government subsidies. But, it no easy way to earn a buck. You might have noticed that there hasn't been a new refinery built since 1976, the ones that exist have been very extensively upgraded to meet modern emissions requirements for the plants themselves and the fuels that they make, and the ones on the East coast that once used Brent indexed crudes (when the price was similar to US oil) are now closing left and right.

Meanwhile US gasoline consumption continues to decline and our "old" refineries are more than sufficient to supply our needs and still EXPORT 400,000 barrels a day of refined gasoline. Your point is?
 
Reality is that we currently have relatively abundant fossil fuels. What I'm talking about is a future reality in which fossil fuels are not abundant.

We've known that since Nixon was president. What is your point?


What you seem to be talking about is a fantasy.

If it were fantasy our usage of solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power would not be increasing each year.



And no energy exists which feeds 8+ billion people on electrical currents from alternative energy sources.

You severely underestimate, the power of the sun, wind, water, and the atom. We continue to transition to non fossil fuel sources of energy.

Our agricultural methods collapse without fossil fuels.

Good reason not to waste them on transportation.


Global freight screeches to a halt. Many billions of people cannot be sustained in a world without abundant fossil fuels. Investing in a fantasy doesn't make the fantasy a reality.

Your reality is the fantasy and one not share by very many people.
 
We've known that since Nixon was president. What is your point?

My point is you aren't grasping mine.

If it were fantasy our usage of solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power would not be increasing each year.

That it is increasing each year fails miserably to show that 8+ billion people can be sustained on it.

You severely underestimate, the power of the sun, wind, water, and the atom. We continue to transition to non fossil fuel sources of energy.

I've repeated it over and over again and you (and others) fail to even begin to comprehend. There is no source of energy with an EROEI that can possibly replace what fossil fuels do for us. The EROEI is too low, and the storage issue is insurmountable insofar as operating large machinery is concerned. EROEI, agriculture, global freight, and energy storage... these alternatives are cool but they do not show anywhere near the amount of promise we would need them to if we expected to keep growing in an age of oil decline.

Good reason not to waste them on transportation.

Too late. We would have had to grasp that and do something about it decades ago. We have never cared about the future as much as we have cared about ourselves. That was true 50 years ago and it's true today.
 
My point is you aren't grasping mine.

Let's hear it?



That it is increasing each year fails miserably to show that 8+ billion people can be sustained on it.

That depends on whether we continue to sit on our asses as we done since we passed peak oil in this country in 1971,



I've repeated it over and over again and you (and others) fail to even begin to comprehend. There is no source of energy with an EROEI that can possibly replace what fossil fuels do for us. The EROEI is too low, and the storage issue is insurmountable insofar as operating large machinery is concerned. EROEI, agriculture, global freight, and energy storage... these alternatives are cool but they do not show anywhere near the amount of promise we would need them to if we expected to keep growing in an age of oil decline. Too late. We would have had to grasp that and do something about it decades ago. We have never cared about the future as much as we have cared about ourselves. That was true 50 years ago and it's true today.


If we transition transportation to electric, already feasible, there is enough oil for other uses, at least until we find alternatives for those uses. Do you deny that man was able to live before he started burning fossil fuels?
 
If we transition transportation to electric, already feasible, there is enough oil for other uses, at least until we find alternatives for those uses.

Do your research and show us where it's feasible to transition the world's transportation to electric. You won't be able to show this.

Do you deny that man was able to live before he started burning fossil fuels?

Obviously not. Do you know what the world's population was before we started burning fossil fuels to get our needs met? My hypothesis is that our population will have to regress to somewhere closer to that level when we regress to life without fossil fuels. There exists nothing that disproves this hypothesis.
 
Do your research and show us where it's feasible to transition the world's transportation to electric. You won't be able to show this.

Easy:

"45% of all oil used in the U.S. goes to gasoline, which means we consume in excess of 180 million gallons of gasoline a day."

Top 16 uses of petroleum

"The average United States driver travels 29 miles per day and is driving a total of 55 minutes per day. (This is an average vehicle speed of 32 mph.) US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics"

Transportation Fact Sheet | Ride To Work::

"The majority of battery powered cars that are available today have a range of between 40 miles (65km) and 100 miles (160km), which is far more than most people travel on a regular basis."

Electric Car Range | What is the range of an electric car?



Obviously not. Do you know what the world's population was before we started burning fossil fuels to get our needs met? My hypothesis is that our population will have to regress to somewhere closer to that level when we regress to life without fossil fuels. There exists nothing that disproves this hypothesis.

I use less than half the oil I did 30 years ago without having to live in a cave, which proves your hypothesis wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom