• 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.....

clownboy said:
Certainly, but again, fuel oil for large electricity generation is not common in most places (maybe some places in Alaska).
Click to expand...

No one is claiming it is. ???


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).
Click to expand...

That is contrary to the reality of the cost of solar and wind technology going down as the price of oil goes up.

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.
Click to expand...


I agree onsite systems are the most efficient, its why so many of us now have onsite systems to reduce our need for grid power.



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.
Click to expand...

What "woe" are you talking about? The majority of commuters do not use buses and trains, they use cars, the majority of which could be electric cars that do not use an oil product for energy. 49% of oil use in the US is gasoline.
 
So back to the topic, where in the constitution does the federal govt have the power to spend money on researching energy production?
 
jonny5 said:
So back to the topic, where in the constitution does the federal govt have the power to spend money on researching energy production?
Click to expand...

When it is in the national interest, just as it has been throughout our history.
 
jonny5 said:
Where is that in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Its in the goals of the Constitution, the Preamble:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
 
Helix said:
I support it. we should have done this and more in the mid 1970s. better late than never.
Click to expand...

No, "we" shouldn't have. We should let the market arise out of a sincere need for the product, and not waste another tax payers dime on "green energy".


There are already better ways to push a car across a city, hydrogen fuel cell for one, but it's being completely ignored .
 
Fenton said:
No, "we" shouldn't have. We should let the market arise out of a sincere need for the product, and not waste another tax payers dime on "green energy".
Click to expand...

energy is a national security issue that shouldn't be left solely to the market. the market should play a role, though. i envision public / private partnerships to innovate multiple solutions, and then the market picks the winners.

and yes, we should have done this decades ago.

Fenton said:
There are already better ways to push a car across a city, hydrogen fuel cell for one, but it's being completely ignored .
Click to expand...

i'm open to most workable solutions.
 
Helix said:
energy is a national security issue that shouldn't
be left solely to the market. the market should play a role, though. i envision public / private partnerships to innovate multiple solutions, and then the market picks the winners.

and yes, we should have done this decades ago.



i'm open to most workable solutions.
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to push a tech thats not practicle by paying for it with our own tax dollars ?

What makes the Govt think they can force the marketabillity of a product just by dumping billions of dollars into it's manufacture.

It's counterintuitive and has already cost us billions.
 
Fenton said:
How many times do we have to push a tech thats not practicle by paying for it with our own tax dollars ?

What makes the Govt think they can force the marketabillity of a product just by dumping billions of dollars into it's manufacture.

It's counterintuitive and has already cost us billions.
Click to expand...

I addressed this in my previous response.
 
Helix said:
I addressed this in my previous response.
Click to expand...

I read it, and since we're not by any reasonable claim in a crisis situtation in regards to energy production, especially with success of fracking, why on earth would anyone call for a Govt intrusion into a market that doesn't exist yet ?

The worst thing to happen to green energy was that it was politicized by a ideology that doesn't regard honesty as a character trait of any value.
 
jonny5 said:
Where is that in the constitution?
Click to expand...

Like it or not, the Constitution is not the end-all, be-all of everything I wish people would stop pretending that it is.
 
Fenton said:
I read it, and since we're not by any reasonable claim in a crisis situtation in regards to energy production, especially with success of fracking, why on earth would anyone call for a Govt intrusion into a market that doesn't exist yet ?

The worst thing to happen to green energy was that it was politicized by a ideology that doesn't regard honesty as a character trait of any value.
Click to expand...

finite resources are finite. the time to prepare is now.
 
apdst said:
Go sink some money into it and get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

I have, time now for my government to do its part. Middle East wars to keep the oil flowing is no longer an acceptable US energy policy.
 
apdst said:
Go sink some money into it and get the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

issues of national security are not best addressed solely by the private sector. i'm more than willing to pay more taxes in order to fund research, though.
 
Helix said:
issues of national security are not best addressed solely by the private sector. i'm more than willing to pay more taxes in order to fund research, though.
Click to expand...

This isn't a national security issue in the pure sense of the term. However, the fact that the private sector won't take the ball and run with it goes to show big a waste of time it is to persue the technology.
 
Catawba said:
I have, time now for my government to do its part. Middle East wars to keep the oil flowing is no longer an acceptable US energy policy.
Click to expand...

That's why we should exploit our own natural resources. You want to stop using Middle Eastern oil? Let's start using ours. Not only is available now, but it's actually a viable option and doesn't require the government to permanently propr up the industry.
 
apdst said:
This isn't a national security issue in the pure sense of the term.
Click to expand...

energy is the lifeblood of the economy, and we've spent significant national resources maintaining our access to it.

apdst said:
However, the fact that the private sector won't take the ball and run with it goes to show big a waste of time it is to persue the technology.
Click to expand...

no, it just goes to show that replacing oil isn't immediately profitable.
 
Helix said:
energy is the lifeblood of the economy, and we've spent significant national resources maintaining our access to it.
Click to expand...

Which is all the more reason that it shouldn't be under total government control.



no, it just goes to show that replacing oil isn't immediately profitable.
Click to expand...

Hence the reason it's a waste of taxpayer dollars to actively persue it.
 
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...
But, as I have already mentioned, it does NOT reduce the government's revenue. When you expense out an asset, you are merely claiming as a deduction in one year what you would otherwise deduct over a longer period by depreciating the capital asset. Same amount of tax revenue, just moved back over a longer time. Hardly a "subsidy" by any definition.
 
apdst said:
That's why we should exploit our own natural resources. You want to stop using Middle Eastern oil? Let's start using ours. Not only is available now, but it's actually a viable option and doesn't require the government to permanently propr up the industry.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a single year since 1971, under either party's control, when we have produced as much oil as we consume.
 
cannuck said:
But, as I have already mentioned, it does NOT reduce the government's revenue. When you expense out an asset, you are merely claiming as a deduction in one year what you would otherwise deduct over a longer period by depreciating the capital asset. Same amount of tax revenue, just moved back over a longer time. Hardly a "subsidy" by any definition.
Click to expand...

This is what is different, as documented above:

"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:
This is what is different, as documented above:

"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...

First off, oil companies aren't deducting the cost of assets. They're deducting the cost of doing business, i.e. a loss. Second, every other business deducts 75%+ of their gross income.

Oil companies don't get government money and they don't receive any special tax breaks, no matter how many times you want to post it, it still won't be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom