Obama announces $2 Billion for alternative energy research

[GannonFan]

This is what, a fraction of the subsidies kicked to Big Oil...there's your $$ with a bunch left over. Next.

Do you realize, the high costs of extraction, environmental regulations, and other externalities and how slim the margins are on oil? Never mind the fact that you would in essence be taking away hard earned dollars and redistributing them to a lecherous underclass that can't carry it's own weight. What's worse, is that Big Oil would have to pass that increase on to manufacturers and shippers, raising the price of goods for everyone.

Besides,we have tons of oil left that hasn't even been touched. Open up more locations for drilling and we can 1) end our dependence on repressive/hostile foreign governments, and 2) lower the price of gas at the pump without any ramifications.

Big Oil is a perfect example of free market/supply and demand economics. It's a sacred cow that cannot be touched.

It's always great to have this sarcastic argument and throw out fancy words like "externalities" without every having have to define and list out what those externalities are. So, how much money are we subsidizing Big Oil with? And these are subsidies that are specific to Big Oil only, not things like allowing depreciation on capital equipment like every other industry, pretty much in every country, gets to do. What specifically are we giving to Big Oil that no one else is getting and hence, is a subsidy. Let's hear some details rather than banter.

[houndawg]

Do you realize, the high costs of extraction, environmental regulations, and other externalities and how slim the margins are on oil? Never mind the fact that you would in essence be taking away hard earned dollars and redistributing them to a lecherous underclass that can't carry it's own weight. What's worse, is that Big Oil would have to pass that increase on to manufacturers and shippers, raising the price of goods for everyone.

Besides,we have tons of oil left that hasn't even been touched. Open up more locations for drilling and we can 1) end our dependence on repressive/hostile foreign governments, and 2) lower the price of gas at the pump without any ramifications.

Big Oil is a perfect example of free market/supply and demand economics. It's a sacred cow that cannot be touched.

It's always great to have this sarcastic argument and throw out fancy words like "externalities" without every having have to define and list out what those externalities are. So, how much money are we subsidizing Big Oil with? And these are subsidies that are specific to Big Oil only, not things like allowing depreciation on capital equipment like every other industry, pretty much in every country, gets to do. What specifically are we giving to Big Oil that no one else is getting and hence, is a subsidy. Let's hear some details rather than banter.

Couple of billion per month in military protection.


Edit: Why not privatize keeping the Strait of Hormuz open?

[kalm]

It's always great to have this sarcastic argument and throw out fancy words like "externalities" without every having have to define and list out what those externalities are. So, how much money are we subsidizing Big Oil with? And these are subsidies that are specific to Big Oil only, not things like allowing depreciation on capital equipment like every other industry, pretty much in every country, gets to do. What specifically are we giving to Big Oil that no one else is getting and hence, is a subsidy. Let's hear some details rather than banter.

Couple of billion per month in military protection.


Edit: Why not privatize keeping the Strait of Hormuz open?

Why not privatize the Interstate Highway System, the EPA, pollution related health costs, and the coup of a democratically elected prime minister of a middle east country while we're at it? Yay privatization!

Gannie, I'm not even gonna say none of these things shouldn't have happened or shouldn't continue to for at least the near future. We have chosen to pay for these externalities and tax breaks from a strategic national interest standpoint. For that same reason and from a true competitive standpoint, why should alternative energy not receive the same subsidies and similar infrastructure investment? What is the REAL cost of oil? What's wrong with a level playing field?

Current Annual Numbers: (in 2010 dollars)
1. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction -- $1.73 billion annual
2. Exempt from passive investments -- $1.8 million annual
3. Percentage depletion allowance -- $1 million annual
4. Deduction for tertiary injectants -- $6.7 million annual
5. Accelerated depreciation on equipment -- $4 billion annual
6. Worldwide U.S. government subsidies through favorable lending -- $1.3 billion annual
7. Credit for production of nonconventional fuels -- $2 billion annual
8. Oil and gas exploration and development expensing -- $1 billion annual
9. Foreign tax credit -- $2.2 billion annual
10. Oilandgasexcesspercentageovercostdepletion--$771.4millionannual
11. Creditforenhancedoilrecoverycosts--$224.3millionannual
12. Exclusionofalternativefuelsfromfuelexcisetax--$49millionannual
13. Exceptionfrompassivelosslimitationsforoilandgas--$27.1millionannual
14. Expensingliquidfuelrefineries--$23.4millionannual
15. Sulfurregulatorycomplianceincentivesforsmalldieselrefiners--$15.6millionannual
16. Creditforcleanfuelvehiclesandrefuelingproperty--$2millionannual
17. Highwaytrustfund--$71.4millionannual
18. Lowincomehomeenergyassistantprogram--$914.3millionannual

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/ ... _flyin.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(And yes, I realize this is from a pro-ethanol source, but you get the point )

[GannonFan]

Couple of billion per month in military protection.


Edit: Why not privatize keeping the Strait of Hormuz open?

Why not privatize the Interstate Highway System, the EPA, pollution related health costs, and the coup of a democratically elected prime minister of a middle east country while we're at it? Yay privatization!

Gannie, I'm not even gonna say none of these things shouldn't have happened or shouldn't continue to for at least the near future. We have chosen to pay for these externalities and tax breaks from a strategic national interest standpoint. For that same reason and from a true competitive standpoint, why should alternative energy not receive the same subsidies and similar infrastructure investment? What is the REAL cost of oil? What's wrong with a level playing field?

Current Annual Numbers: (in 2010 dollars)
1. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction -- $1.73 billion annual
2. Exempt from passive investments -- $1.8 million annual
3. Percentage depletion allowance -- $1 million annual
4. Deduction for tertiary injectants -- $6.7 million annual
5. Accelerated depreciation on equipment -- $4 billion annual
6. Worldwide U.S. government subsidies through favorable lending -- $1.3 billion annual
7. Credit for production of nonconventional fuels -- $2 billion annual
8. Oil and gas exploration and development expensing -- $1 billion annual
9. Foreign tax credit -- $2.2 billion annual
10. Oilandgasexcesspercentageovercostdepletion--$771.4millionannual
11. Creditforenhancedoilrecoverycosts--$224.3millionannual
12. Exclusionofalternativefuelsfromfuelexcisetax--$49millionannual
13. Exceptionfrompassivelosslimitationsforoilandgas--$27.1millionannual
14. Expensingliquidfuelrefineries--$23.4millionannual
15. Sulfurregulatorycomplianceincentivesforsmalldieselrefiners--$15.6millionannual
16. Creditforcleanfuelvehiclesandrefuelingproperty--$2millionannual
17. Highwaytrustfund--$71.4millionannual
18. Lowincomehomeenergyassistantprogram--$914.3millionannual

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/ ... _flyin.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(And yes, I realize this is from a pro-ethanol source, but you get the point )

Okay, so houndawg's silly point that all foreign policy since and including WWII is some big subsidy solely for Big Oil, you're list above comes out to 14.3B in supposed kickbacks and subsidies to Big Oil that isn't available to anyone else, especially renewable energies. The so called unequal playing field you are referring to.

So going through that list, the $4B for accelerated depreciation on equipment is not a Big Oil specific subsidy as plenty of industries, mine included, get this supposed "subsidy". Same goes for the $1.73B for domestic manufacturing, which obviously everyone who makes something in the US takes this subsidy as well. The foreign tax credit takes another $2.2B off the Big Oil exclusive list. The credit for producing nonconventional fuels actually expired in 2011 so I don't think that's even there anymore so that's another $2B off this list.

So right there, without really trying, we're already down to $4.37B, and there are plenty of other dubious ones on that list. By most conventional wisdom the real subsidy, once you factor out what every other US manufacturer is also able to get, is about half of that. Sure, you could cut that entirely and pay for this alternative energy research, but the question then becomes why you would single out Big Oil to be the one industry that doesn't get the same subsidies other manufacturers get?

Like I said, I think we have this misconception out there that Big Oil is robbing us blind by basically being funded by the government but then taking all the profits for themselves. From houndawgs boiler plate answer that our entire foreign policy and defense industries are to support Big Oil, it's obvious that there will continue to be unreasonable people like that forever. But at the end of the day, Big Oil takes far fewer government handouts than most think, and really not much more, if that, than other industries out there, including alternate energy.

[mrklean]

We can't afford this.

We can't afford not to do this.

[houndawg]

Why not privatize the Interstate Highway System, the EPA, pollution related health costs, and the coup of a democratically elected prime minister of a middle east country while we're at it? Yay privatization!

Gannie, I'm not even gonna say none of these things shouldn't have happened or shouldn't continue to for at least the near future. We have chosen to pay for these externalities and tax breaks from a strategic national interest standpoint. For that same reason and from a true competitive standpoint, why should alternative energy not receive the same subsidies and similar infrastructure investment? What is the REAL cost of oil? What's wrong with a level playing field?



http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/ ... _flyin.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(And yes, I realize this is from a pro-ethanol source, but you get the point )

Okay, so houndawg's silly point that all foreign policy since and including WWII is some big subsidy solely for Big Oil, you're list above comes out to 14.3B in supposed kickbacks and subsidies to Big Oil that isn't available to anyone else, especially renewable energies. The so called unequal playing field you are referring to.

So going through that list, the $4B for accelerated depreciation on equipment is not a Big Oil specific subsidy as plenty of industries, mine included, get this supposed "subsidy". Same goes for the $1.73B for domestic manufacturing, which obviously everyone who makes something in the US takes this subsidy as well. The foreign tax credit takes another $2.2B off the Big Oil exclusive list. The credit for producing nonconventional fuels actually expired in 2011 so I don't think that's even there anymore so that's another $2B off this list.

So right there, without really trying, we're already down to $4.37B, and there are plenty of other dubious ones on that list. By most conventional wisdom the real subsidy, once you factor out what every other US manufacturer is also able to get, is about half of that. Sure, you could cut that entirely and pay for this alternative energy research, but the question then becomes why you would single out Big Oil to be the one industry that doesn't get the same subsidies other manufacturers get?

Like I said, I think we have this misconception out there that Big Oil is robbing us blind by basically being funded by the government but then taking all the profits for themselves. From houndawgs boiler plate answer that our entire foreign policy and defense industries are to support Big Oil, it's obvious that there will continue to be unreasonable people like that forever. But at the end of the day, Big Oil takes far fewer government handouts than most think, and really not much more, if that, than other industries out there, including alternate energy.

No need to get peevish, cannon; you asked. If you think it is a silly point about who pays and who dies to guarantee the safety of for-profit oil, then you just don't get it, indeed aren't capable of getting it... ....feeble shit, gf....

[GannonFan]

Okay, so houndawg's silly point that all foreign policy since and including WWII is some big subsidy solely for Big Oil, you're list above comes out to 14.3B in supposed kickbacks and subsidies to Big Oil that isn't available to anyone else, especially renewable energies. The so called unequal playing field you are referring to.

So going through that list, the $4B for accelerated depreciation on equipment is not a Big Oil specific subsidy as plenty of industries, mine included, get this supposed "subsidy". Same goes for the $1.73B for domestic manufacturing, which obviously everyone who makes something in the US takes this subsidy as well. The foreign tax credit takes another $2.2B off the Big Oil exclusive list. The credit for producing nonconventional fuels actually expired in 2011 so I don't think that's even there anymore so that's another $2B off this list.

So right there, without really trying, we're already down to $4.37B, and there are plenty of other dubious ones on that list. By most conventional wisdom the real subsidy, once you factor out what every other US manufacturer is also able to get, is about half of that. Sure, you could cut that entirely and pay for this alternative energy research, but the question then becomes why you would single out Big Oil to be the one industry that doesn't get the same subsidies other manufacturers get?

Like I said, I think we have this misconception out there that Big Oil is robbing us blind by basically being funded by the government but then taking all the profits for themselves. From houndawgs boiler plate answer that our entire foreign policy and defense industries are to support Big Oil, it's obvious that there will continue to be unreasonable people like that forever. But at the end of the day, Big Oil takes far fewer government handouts than most think, and really not much more, if that, than other industries out there, including alternate energy.

No need to get peevish, cannon; you asked. If you think it is a silly point about who pays and who dies to guarantee the safety of for-profit oil, then you just don't get it, indeed aren't capable of getting it... ....feeble ****, gf....

Oh I get it, I just think you ignore and/or minimize the vast multitude of other reasons why we've done what we have in terms of foreign policy starting with WWII and then forward.

[houndawg]

No need to get peevish, cannon; you asked. If you think it is a silly point about who pays and who dies to guarantee the safety of for-profit oil, then you just don't get it, indeed aren't capable of getting it... ....feeble ****, gf....

Oh I get it, I just think you ignore and/or minimize the vast multitude of other reasons why we've done what we have in terms of foreign policy starting with WWII and then forward.

Maybe so but the fact remains that the safety of the oil is subsidized by the money and blood of the American taxpayer and our defense strategy revolves around oil. Surely you remember the first place our military secured while they weren't going after Osama in Afghanistan?

[GannonFan]

Oh I get it, I just think you ignore and/or minimize the vast multitude of other reasons why we've done what we have in terms of foreign policy starting with WWII and then forward.

Maybe so but the fact remains that the safety of the oil is subsidized by the money and blood of the American taxpayer and our defense strategy revolves around oil. Surely you remember the first place our military secured while they weren't going after Osama in Afghanistan?

Uh, our existence as a country is subsidized by the money and blood of the American taxpayer. Not just oil.

[houndawg]

Maybe so but the fact remains that the safety of the oil is subsidized by the money and blood of the American taxpayer and our defense strategy revolves around oil. Surely you remember the first place our military secured while they weren't going after Osama in Afghanistan?

Uh, our existence as a country is subsidized by the money and blood of the American taxpayer. Not just oil.

Uh, nobody suggested any different. Doesn't change the fact that oil gets a free ride on the back of the taxpayer in the form of free protection.

[kalm]

Uh, our existence as a country is subsidized by the money and blood of the American taxpayer. Not just oil.

Uh, nobody suggested any different. Doesn't change the fact that oil gets a free ride on the back of the taxpayer in the form of free protection.

Meanwhile, the viability of alternatives is downplayed because they're less "competitive."

[houndawg]

Uh, nobody suggested any different. Doesn't change the fact that oil gets a free ride on the back of the taxpayer in the form of free protection.

Meanwhile, the viability of alternatives is downplayed because they're less "competitive."

Holy supply and demand, Batman!

[GannonFan]

Uh, our existence as a country is subsidized by the money and blood of the American taxpayer. Not just oil.

Uh, nobody suggested any different. Doesn't change the fact that oil gets a free ride on the back of the taxpayer in the form of free protection.

As does every US company (and to take it further many other countrie's companies) that has any business that takes place overseas. That's the problem with your argument, you want it to seem that Big Oil is the only industry that is benefitted by the US making the world a safer place to do business in, when in reality, every company that has business that crosses national borders enjoys the same benefit. Wind and solar get that benefit every time we buy components for those technologies from other countries. Your's is an impossible scenario where you want to assign a dollar figure for how much you think an industry benefits from American power and then charge the industry that amount. All you're doing in that case is picking winners and losers - no need to try to disguise that with fabricated "subsidies". Be honest.

[kalm]

Uh, nobody suggested any different. Doesn't change the fact that oil gets a free ride on the back of the taxpayer in the form of free protection.

As does every US company (and to take it further many other countrie's companies) that has any business that takes place overseas. That's the problem with your argument, you want it to seem that Big Oil is the only industry that is benefitted by the US making the world a safer place to do business in, when in reality, every company that has business that crosses national borders enjoys the same benefit. Wind and solar get that benefit every time we buy components for those technologies from other countries. Your's is an impossible scenario where you want to assign a dollar figure for how much you think an industry benefits from American power and then charge the industry that amount. All you're doing in that case is picking winners and losers - no need to try to disguise that with fabricated "subsidies". Be honest.

We don't go to war over wind and solar and we don't have subsidize their pollution.

[GannonFan]

As does every US company (and to take it further many other countrie's companies) that has any business that takes place overseas. That's the problem with your argument, you want it to seem that Big Oil is the only industry that is benefitted by the US making the world a safer place to do business in, when in reality, every company that has business that crosses national borders enjoys the same benefit. Wind and solar get that benefit every time we buy components for those technologies from other countries. Your's is an impossible scenario where you want to assign a dollar figure for how much you think an industry benefits from American power and then charge the industry that amount. All you're doing in that case is picking winners and losers - no need to try to disguise that with fabricated "subsidies". Be honest.

We don't go to war over wind and solar and we don't have subsidize their pollution.

Why would anyone go to war over things that don't work and don't come close to covering the power needs now or in the future? And you do realize that the manufacture of wind components and solar panels is not a pollution-free exercise, correct? They're not made via fairy dust (which itself is considered a carcinogen in California).

[kalm]

We don't go to war over wind and solar and we don't have subsidize their pollution.

Why would anyone go to war over things that don't work and don't come close to covering the power needs now or in the future? And you do realize that the manufacture of wind components and solar panels is not a pollution-free exercise, correct? They're not made via fairy dust (which itself is considered a carcinogen in California).

Do they work? Of course. Do they come close to covering our power needs at the moment? Of course not. Does fossil fuel related pollution and military protectionism bear tremendous costs? Absolutely.

As I stated earlier, I won't pretend this to be an overnight solution. We still need fossil fuels for awhile. But lets not pretend that greater efficiency can't be gained from alternatives or that the playing field when considering the true costs of energy (including the externalities) between them and oil is level. It's clearly not.

[UNI88]

Why would anyone go to war over things that don't work and don't come close to covering the power needs now or in the future? And you do realize that the manufacture of wind components and solar panels is not a pollution-free exercise, correct? They're not made via fairy dust (which itself is considered a carcinogen in California).

Do they work? Of course. Do they come close to covering our power needs at the moment? Of course not. Does fossil fuel related pollution and military protectionism bear tremendous costs? Absolutely.

As I stated earlier, I won't pretend this to be an overnight solution. We still need fossil fuels for awhile. But lets not pretend that greater efficiency can't be gained from alternatives or that the playing field when considering the true costs of energy (including the externalities) between them and oil is level. It's clearly not.

IMO, the long-term replacement for fossil fuels isn't going to be wind or earth-based solar. It's going to be some revolutionary breakthrough that we stumble upon by accident. Unfortunately, we don't spend as much on R&D as we used to (DARPA, NIST, NASA, etc.) and much of what we spend has a more restricted focus so the chances of monumental accidental discovery have been seriously reduced.

[kalm]

Do they work? Of course. Do they come close to covering our power needs at the moment? Of course not. Does fossil fuel related pollution and military protectionism bear tremendous costs? Absolutely.

As I stated earlier, I won't pretend this to be an overnight solution. We still need fossil fuels for awhile. But lets not pretend that greater efficiency can't be gained from alternatives or that the playing field when considering the true costs of energy (including the externalities) between them and oil is level. It's clearly not.

IMO, the long-term replacement for fossil fuels isn't going to be wind or earth-based solar. It's going to be some revolutionary breakthrough that we stumble upon by accident. Unfortunately, we don't spend as much on R&D as we used to (DARPA, NIST, NASA, etc.) and much of what we spend has a more restricted focus so the chances of monumental accidental discovery have been seriously reduced.

I agree. Gannie just wants to go back to the 1950's when we didn't have to worry about pollution or the oil supply running low.

[GannonFan]

IMO, the long-term replacement for fossil fuels isn't going to be wind or earth-based solar. It's going to be some revolutionary breakthrough that we stumble upon by accident. Unfortunately, we don't spend as much on R&D as we used to (DARPA, NIST, NASA, etc.) and much of what we spend has a more restricted focus so the chances of monumental accidental discovery have been seriously reduced.

I agree. Gannie just wants to go back to the 1950's when we didn't have to worry about pollution or the oil supply running low.

Well, if anyone here knows and cares about the 1950's, you would be the expert we would fall back on. It is your wheelhouse and your economic nirvana.

So, now the oil supply is running low? Really? How old are your talking points? From your index cards in front of you, are we still coming up to an Ice Age and is Malthus still considered correct?

[UNI88]

IMO, the long-term replacement for fossil fuels isn't going to be wind or earth-based solar. It's going to be some revolutionary breakthrough that we stumble upon by accident. Unfortunately, we don't spend as much on R&D as we used to (DARPA, NIST, NASA, etc.) and much of what we spend has a more restricted focus so the chances of monumental accidental discovery have been seriously reduced.

I agree. Gannie just wants to go back to the 1950's when we didn't have to worry about pollution or the oil supply running low.

I don't think Gannie wants to go back to the 50's. He's just Vulcan-like in that he is driven by logic, reason and facts. If he sees something that he believes is incorrect he points it out and he's right most of the time.

[kalm]

I agree. Gannie just wants to go back to the 1950's when we didn't have to worry about pollution or the oil supply running low.

I don't think Gannie wants to go back to the 50's. He's just Vulcan-like in that he is driven by logic, reason and facts. If he sees something that he believes is incorrect he points it out and he's right most of the time.

You could have added how I'm the visionary and risk taking Kirk to his Spock.

[kalm]

I agree. Gannie just wants to go back to the 1950's when we didn't have to worry about pollution or the oil supply running low.

Well, if anyone here knows and cares about the 1950's, you would be the expert we would fall back on. It is your wheelhouse and your economic nirvana.

So, now the oil supply is running low? Really? How old are your talking points? From your index cards in front of you, are we still coming up to an Ice Age and is Malthus still considered correct?

Geez...I put that bit in there for your pleasure. Thankless grouch!

[mrklean]

This is what, a fraction of the subsidies kicked to Big Oil...there's your $$ with a bunch left over. Next.

Do you realize, the high costs of extraction, environmental regulations, and other externalities and how slim the margins are on oil? Never mind the fact that you would in essence be taking away hard earned dollars and redistributing them to a lecherous underclass that can't carry it's own weight. What's worse, is that Big Oil would have to pass that increase on to manufacturers and shippers, raising the price of goods for everyone.

Besides,we have tons of oil left that hasn't even been touched. Open up more locations for drilling and we can 1) end our dependence on repressive/hostile foreign governments, and 2) lower the price of gas at the pump without any ramifications.

Big Oil is a perfect example of free market/supply and demand economics. It's a sacred cow that cannot be touched.

[GannonFan]

Well, if anyone here knows and cares about the 1950's, you would be the expert we would fall back on. It is your wheelhouse and your economic nirvana.

So, now the oil supply is running low? Really? How old are your talking points? From your index cards in front of you, are we still coming up to an Ice Age and is Malthus still considered correct?

Geez...I put that bit in there for your pleasure. Thankless grouch!

I have been grouchier lately. I blame the hectic youth baseball season for most of that. Only sport my kids play that the schedules aren't on fixed days. Baseball could be at any time on any day, Sunday included. Makes scheduling the rest of things that make up life a bit harder. Hence the grouchiness. But I thought the Malthus line was funny.

[UNI88]

I don't think Gannie wants to go back to the 50's. He's just Vulcan-like in that he is driven by logic, reason and facts. If he sees something that he believes is incorrect he points it out and he's right most of the time.

You could have added how I'm the visionary and risk taking Kirk to his Spock.

I've got DD cast as Kirk. I'd cast you as Scotty - "Captain, I don't know how much more emergency power we can take before we start to break up."