• 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.....

Andalublue said:
You don't think a little bit of trimming of that $700 billion-a-year military spend could fill these gaps?
Click to expand...

What gives you that ludicrous idea? And what does that have to do with the notion that Obama stated all these cataclysmic things that would happen due to sequestration, and then turns around to propose money go to something other than those things?
 
iguanaman said:
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?
Click to expand...
Simply to correct the complete missinformation provided. No need to imagine that Big Oil wakes up in the morning and runs its world based on how much the don't make on gasoline (they do reasonably well in a very competitive market) nor how much accelerated depreciation contributes to their bottom line (which is absolutely zero in the long term).

US gasoline consumption is declining for two reasons: CAFE standards both present and proposed and financial disaster thanks to total idiocy in Washington going back several administrations. Go shopping for a genav airplane right now, and you will find you can buy a light twin with big engines for absolute peanuts - and there are nearly a thousand for sale.

The US market at this time wants better energy efficiency - but it wants to do so without curbing its massive apetite (actually, I believe Canada leads the US as the greatest wasters of energy on the planet per capita) for cheap energy. That day has to come to an end, and sooner is far better than later, but the mindset here is still to feel entitled to be able to squander resources as fast as the total cash and credit available can pay for them. That is why the discussion even in this thread is all about how to get the COST of energy down, rather than the real issue which is how to get the CONSUMPTION of energy to decline dramatically.

The O-Bummer proposals are targeted at elections, not sustainable economic and ecological efforts. I guess that is my point.
 
Catawba said:
Were you really unaware we give the oil companies a $41 billion dollar subsidy each year?

Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...
Cat: I have heard this and many other numbers many times, and I have made a genuine effort to FIND these subsidies, but, for the most part, they do not exist. This is the distortion of reality from the CS Monitor (for what reason I can't imagine) as well as dozens of other sources that do not realize the difference between accelerated depreciation and subsidy. With the government sticking its nose so deeply into EVERY business and market (which is my complaint) there are no doubt some of the hundreds of billions of subsidies that end up in Big Oil's pockets directly or indirectly (for example, US direct cash farm susbisidies at nearly 80% of Canada's gross domestic ag product no doubt result in use of more petro in intense ag production), but for the most part, nobody is cutting a cheque nor forgiving taxation (as opposed to delaying) for normal business activities.

If you can cite any exceptions to that, I would appreciate knowing and learning.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct in assuming that the world of trade today is designed around petro energy that is far, far too cheap - and thus wasted at an astounding rate. Once this particular free ride is over, there will still be trade and transport, but it will not look anything like what we have today, nor be any where near as cheap, but it will be there. My guess is wind powered with heat engine assist.

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.
Click to expand...
Again you hit that nail fairly head on. I might point out that it will be BOTH population and lifestyle that must take a hit.
 
Catawba said:
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
Click to expand...

And how much would that cost? How much land will it take up? Not every place in the country is a ****ing desert with unlimited space for those sort of things.

Nuclear would produce the same energy capacity for 1/100th of the amount of land. Fact is, wind and solar are inferior energy sources.
 
MMC said:
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?
Click to expand...

So, to summarize, tax big oil, and funnel the money to Democrat businesses.
 
cannuck said:
Cat: I have heard this and many other numbers many times, and I have made a genuine effort to FIND these subsidies, but, for the most part, they do not exist. This is the distortion of reality from the CS Monitor (for what reason I can't imagine) as well as dozens of other sources that do not realize the difference between accelerated depreciation and subsidy. With the government sticking its nose so deeply into EVERY business and market (which is my complaint) there are no doubt some of the hundreds of billions of subsidies that end up in Big Oil's pockets directly or indirectly (for example, US direct cash farm susbisidies at nearly 80% of Canada's gross domestic ag product no doubt result in use of more petro in intense ag production), but for the most part, nobody is cutting a cheque nor forgiving taxation (as opposed to delaying) for normal business activities.

If you can cite any exceptions to that, I would appreciate knowing and learning.
Click to expand...


Tomato/tomato.

The subsidy in question is a tax break (first introduced in 1926), and is what is being considered to be discontinued.

"The rationale for this loophole is that it encourages exploration for new oil-presumably something no oil company would otherwise do. Oil industry executives argue that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing investments. That's true, but they're only allowed to take off the actual cost of those assets, not deduct 15% of their gross income virtually forever.

Introduced in 1926, the oil depletion allowance was restricted in 1975 to independent oil companies that don't refine or import oil. To make up for this, the larger, integrated companies were given the intangible drilling cost deduction, which in some ways is even better."

Corporate Welfare Oil and Gas Tax Breaks
 
Catawba said:
Tomato/tomato.

The subsidy in question is a tax break (first introduced in 1926), and is what is being considered to be discontinued.

"The rationale for this loophole is that it encourages exploration for new oil-presumably something no oil company would otherwise do. Oil industry executives argue that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing investments. That's true, but they're only allowed to take off the actual cost of those assets, not deduct 15% of their gross income virtually forever.

Introduced in 1926, the oil depletion allowance was restricted in 1975 to independent oil companies that don't refine or import oil. To make up for this, the larger, integrated companies were given the intangible drilling cost deduction, which in some ways is even better."

Corporate Welfare Oil and Gas Tax Breaks
Click to expand...

A tax deduction is not a subsidy.
 
Grant said:
How much of that $15.6 billion a year is recovered in taxes at the pump?
Click to expand...

How much of those taxes is supposed to cover road repairs, but is stolen by politicians to fund other projects?
 
apdst said:
Oil and gas companies don't get subsidies. Do you really believe that they do?
Click to expand...

See below:


Catawba said:
Tomato/tomato.

The subsidy in question is a tax break (first introduced in 1926), and is what is being considered to be discontinued.

"The rationale for this loophole is that it encourages exploration for new oil-presumably something no oil company would otherwise do. Oil industry executives argue that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing investments. That's true, but they're only allowed to take off the actual cost of those assets, not deduct 15% of their gross income virtually forever.

Introduced in 1926, the oil depletion allowance was restricted in 1975 to independent oil companies that don't refine or import oil. To make up for this, the larger, integrated companies were given the intangible drilling cost deduction, which in some ways is even better."

Corporate Welfare Oil and Gas Tax Breaks
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
See below:
Click to expand...

The government doesn't give money to the oil companies and oil companies don't get any special tax breaks. They're allowed the same tax deductions that any other business is allowed.
 
Catawba said:
According to the far right only.
Click to expand...

According to the dictionary

Definition of SUBSIDY


: a grant or gift of money: as

a: a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation

b: money granted by one state to another

c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
Click to expand...

Subsidy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
apdst said:
The government doesn't give money to the oil companies and oil companies don't get any special tax breaks. They're allowed the same tax deductions that any other business is allowed.
Click to expand...

"The rationale for this loophole is that it encourages exploration for new oil-presumably something no oil company would otherwise do. Oil industry executives argue that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing investments. That's true, but they're only allowed to take off the actual cost of those assets, not deduct 15% of their gross income virtually forever.
 
Catawba said:
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
Click to expand...

There's so much off about that. First, anyone who thinks that oil is not a necessary part of solar and wind generation (AND transmission) is seriously fooling themselves. Second, hydro is not an alternative in this context, it was around long before oil dependence. If we could satisfy the nation's need for electricity from hydro alone, or in conjunction with other so-called alternatives at the same cost as using coal and oil, we would. But hydro is not just restricted by having the presense of water but also by our insistence that fish and recreation be preserved.

Also, counting upon the hydro generation to remain the same is a fool's errand in Arizona. More people every day, more usage and more rationing. The Colorado is strained and it's only going to get worse.

I like that Arizona is looking to generate locally, that's how it should be. In fact, I think all counties in Arizona should roll the requiement of solar into their new building regs. It fits the location.

But really, with electricity generation we're not talking about a substitute for oil per se, but coal, right? And we have an abundant source for that here without foreign dependence.

Replacing oil use in vehicles is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Oil usage for vehicles is not restricted to the fuel, but virtually every other piece and part. Researching fuel replacement alone, again, has already been done and the solutions are fully finished and usable right now. No need to reinvent the wheel and pay for it again.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
When we give a tax break we are voluntarily reducing our income. If you wish to call it elimination of a tax break instead of eliminating a subsidy, so be it.

Its one of those tomato/tomato semantics arguments.
Click to expand...

No, its a mistake on your part. A subsidy is a transfer of currency from from one party to another to in order to lower a cost. The oil depletion allowance does not do this. Its no more accurate than calling the mortgage interest deduction a subsidy.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the oil companies subsidize the govt since the taxes they pay more than cover the services they receive in return. The funny thing is, we agree they should be done away with. I simply see no need to make it sounds worse in order to mislead people.
 
clownboy said:
There's so much off about that. First, anyone who thinks that oil is not a necessary part of solar and wind generation (AND transmission) is seriously fooling themselves.
Click to expand...

Have you really never considered that if we reduce the amount of oil used for energy there is more of it left for other purposes?

Second, hydro is not an alternative in this context, it was around long before oil dependence. If we could satisfy the nation's need for electricity from hydro alone, or in conjunction with other so-called alternatives at the same cost as using coal and oil, we would.
Click to expand...

We get closer to that point each day the cost of solar, wind, and nuclear go down and the price of oil goes up due to world supply/demand.

I like that Arizona is looking to generate locally, that's how it should be. In fact, I think all counties in Arizona should roll the requiement of solar into their new building regs. It fits the location.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that!

But really, with electricity generation we're not talking about a substitute for oil per se, but coal, right? And we have an abundant sdource for that here without foreign dependence.

Replacing oil use in vehicles is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Oil usage for vehicles is not restricted to the fuel, but virtually every other piece and part. Researching fuerl replacement alone, again, has already been done and the solutions are fully finished and usable right now. No need to reinvent the wheel and pay for it again.
Click to expand...


Electric cars can meet the needs of most commuters.
 
jonny5 said:
No, its a mistake on your part. A subsidy is a transfer of currency from from one party to another to in order to lower a cost. The oil depletion allowance does not do this. Its no more accurate than calling the mortgage interest deduction a subsidy.

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that the oil companies subsidize the govt since the taxes they pay more than cover the services they receive in return. The funny thing is, we agree they should be done away with. I simply see no need to make it sounds worse in order to mislead people.
Click to expand...


Thanks for providing the libertarian perspective!
 
Catawba said:
"The rationale for this loophole is that it encourages exploration for new oil-presumably something no oil company would otherwise do. Oil industry executives argue that other businesses are allowed to depreciate the costs of their manufacturing investments. That's true, but they're only allowed to take off the actual cost of those assets, not deduct 15% of their gross income virtually forever.
Click to expand...

Also from your source:

It lets them deduct 70% of the cost of setting up a drilling operation in the year those expenses occur, rather than having to depreciate them over the expected life of the well. The other 30% they can take off over the next five years. This boondoggle costs us about $500 million a year.
Click to expand...

Which basically means, oil companies are allowed to deduct business expenses, just like every other business in this country.

By your logic, ALL businesses receive government subsidies.
 
Catawba said:
Have you really never considered that if we reduce the amount of oil used for energy there is more of it left for other purposes?
Click to expand...

Certainly, but again, fuel oil for large electricity generation is not common in most places (maybe some places in Alaska).

Catawba said:
We get closer to that point each day the cost of solar, wind, and nuclear go down and the price of oil goes up due to world supply/demand.
Click to expand...

As the price of oil rises so does the price of those alternatives. Care to guess what their parts and components are made using? That's right, oil (and a whole bunch of other finite supply rare earth materials). The only thing that would make the alternatives a replacement for carbon (coal, not oil, in this case) are significant improvements in the two weak sisters of our eletrical systems - transmission (we lose 47% of the electricity we generate in the transmission) and storage.

Catawba said:
Electric cars can meet the needs of most commuters.
Click to expand...

Trading one woe for others. You're not saving oil in the generation here, but in the fuel where an electric car replaced a petro-based fuel car. We already try that with buses and commuter trains. Only solves a small part of the problem as you can see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom