The Future of Energy

[grapeman]

Subsidizing oil is absurd. Why do we want to lower the price of something we should be using less of? Light sweet crude is a rare natural resource and the price we pay for gas should reflect that.

If people want to drive gas guzzlers than so be it, that's capitalism, but let the free market control the price.

We don't subsidize oil. Do some research.

It's like ringing the bell! once rung, it cannot be un-rung.

So our lair in chief obama says so, greenies pick up on the bullshit via msnbc and believe it.

Pathetic. Do your own research and thinking on the subject and quit allowing people to plant bullshit falsities in your head.

There are NO oil subsidies. obama only says there are knowing a vast ocean of idiots will believe that shit and cry for justice against oil companies.

Our country suffers due to this sheer ignorance, and our government depends on it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

While I agree with you, the problem is that the cost of energy is "artificially high", due to government intervention.

W/o incentives, venture capitalists wouldn't seek loans to progress. They'd just meld into the status-quot.

Why we as citizens, put up with government bullshit is beyond me. I know it has a lot to do with public school educations and pictures of polar bears, each as bad and fallacious as the other.

It's because we've seen the other side. We know that laissez-faire destroys macro economies. The more you have, the easier it is to take from others. Reference the 'temporary' tax-cuts the majority passed. Now this same opposition loses the 'temporary" label and says the end constitutes tax hikes. Kinda makes the whole 'temporary' aspect dishonest.

The fact that "greenie's" love obama's meddling in energy, costing us all "billions" just shows their ignorance.

Recall how ignorant you are the next time you drive on the interstate, mail a letter, enjoy hydro-electric/ nuclear power, etc.

Large-scale corporate projects generate profits for the few.

Large-scale government/corporate projects generate services for the public, while generating profits for the corporations that do the work.

What children don't understand is that when left to the free market, things will evolve in a positive way that will benefit everyone.

Even children who recognize history understand you simply ignore it.

When a technology is finally ready for prime time, you will buy and use it and it won't need to be subsidized by the government. Until then, we'll use oil, which is cheaper then bottled water.

Apparently you ignore economics as well. Just filled up the gas tank @ $3.58/gal. My bottled water is $1/gal. Much cheaper if I get it 5 gallons at a time.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I posted up a fact sheet about 50 posts ago that shows we DO NOT subsidize oil.

The fact that you THINK" we do, proves;
1. you don't read or comprehend my posts.
2. you believe everything you hear from obama's lips and watch on msnbc.
3. I'm dealing with an idiot!

Do some fact checking boy.

The added pejoratives just make your referenced argument weaker.

Exxon/Mobile doesn't just receive assistance in the form of subsidies. They're but one of 68% of American corporations that pay no federal income taxes. Some of these businesses get rebates on top of paying zero federal taxes. These companies lobby to reward their tax-accountants no-tax status to better serve their no-tax interests.

As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies


By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

Published: July 3, 2010


When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.


At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.


With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.


But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.


According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.


And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.


“The flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. “There is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.”


Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers. By helping producers weather market fluctuations and invest in technology, tax incentives are supporting an industry that the officials say provides 9.2 million jobs.


The American Petroleum Institute, an industry advocacy group, argues that even with subsidies, oil producers paid or incurred $280 billion in American income taxes from 2006 to 2008, and pay a higher percentage of their earnings in taxes than most other American corporations.


As oil continues to spread across the Gulf of Mexico, however, the industry is being forced to defend tax breaks that some say are being abused or are outdated.


The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday announced that it was investigating whether Transocean had exploited tax laws by moving overseas to avoid paying taxes in the United States.



Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.


Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs.


“These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”


But some government watchdog groups say that only the industry’s political muscle is preserving the tax breaks. An economist for the Treasury Department said in 2009 that a study had found that oil prices and potential profits were so high that eliminating the subsidies would decrease American output by less than half of one percent.


“We’re giving tax breaks to highly profitable companies to do what they would be doing anyway,” said Sima J. Gandhi, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. “That’s not an incentive; that’s a giveaway.”


Some of the tax breaks date back nearly a century, when they were intended to encourage exploration in an era of rudimentary technology, when costly investments frequently produced only dry holes. Because of one lingering provision from the Tariff Act of 1913, many small and midsize oil companies based in the United States can claim deductions for the lost value of tapped oil fields far beyond the amount the companies actually paid for the oil rights.


Other tax breaks were born of international politics. In an attempt to deter Soviet influence in the Middle East in the 1950s, the State Department backed a Saudi Arabian accounting maneuver that reclassified the royalties charged by foreign governments to American oil drillers. Saudi Arabia and others began to treat some of the royalties as taxes, which entitled the companies to subtract those payments from their American tax bills. Despite repeated attempts to forbid this accounting practice, companies continue to deduct the payments. The Treasury Department estimates that it will cost $8.2 billion over the next decade.


Over the last 10 years, oil companies have also been aggressive in using foreign tax havens. Many rigs, like Deepwater Horizon, are registered in Panama or in the Marshall Islands, where they are subject to lower taxes and less stringent safety and staff regulations. American producers have also aggressively exploited the tax code by opening small offices in low-tax countries. A recent study by Martin A. Sullivan, an economist for the trade publication Tax Analysts, found that the five oil drilling companies that had undergone these “corporate inversions” had saved themselves a total of $4 billion in taxes since 1999.


Transocean — which has approximately 18,000 employees worldwide, including 1,300 in Houston and about a dozen in Zug, Switzerland — has saved $1.8 billion in taxes since moving overseas in 1999, the study found.


Transocean said it had paid more than $300 million in taxes so far for 2009, and that its move reflected its global scope, with only 15 of its 139 rigs located in the United States. “Transocean is truly a global company,” it said in a statement.


Despite the public anger at the gulf spill, it is far from certain that Congress will eliminate the tax breaks. As recently as 2005, when windfall profits for energy companies prompted even President George W. Bush — a former Texas oilman himself — to publicly call for an end to incentives, the energy bill he and Congress enacted still included $2.6 billion in oil subsidies. In 2007, after Democrats took control of Congress, a move to end the tax breaks failed.


Mr. Menendez said he believed the Gulf spill was devastating enough to spur Congress into action. But one notable omission in his bill shows the vast economic reach of the industry. While the legislation would cut many incentives over the next decade, it would not touch the tax breaks for oil refineries, many of which have operations and employees in his home state, New Jersey.


Mr. Menendez’s aides said the senator thought it was legitimate to allow refineries to continue claiming a manufacturing tax credit that he wants to eliminate for drillers because refining is a manufacturing business and because refineries do not benefit from high oil prices. Mr. Menendez did not consult with New Jersey refineries when writing the bill, his aides said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

Here's the ConnocoPhillips CEO refusing to apologize for saying 'It's un-American' to end oil subsidies.

...On Wednesday, ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva outraged many on Capitol Hill when he released a statement calling it “un-American” to end subsidies to the Big 5 oil companies — ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. A press release referencing the subsidies posted on the company’s website was headlined: “ConocoPhillips Highlights Solid Results and Raises Concerns Over Un-American Tax Proposals at Annual Meeting of Shareholders.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/05/12/165751/oil-ceos-un-american/

When you base your applications on idealistic pontifications you can say anything you want, doesn't make it reality. I guess that's how all the pejoratives originate. If you were telling the truth you wouldn't get ticked. You're just pissed because you can't float doves like cable and radio shock-jocks.

How 'bout some good ol' conservative views on big-oil subsidies? Is Heritage far-right enough?

The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers. But if those senators were truly serious about cutting the deficit, they wouldn’t stop at just cutting subsidies for oil companies. They would also call for the elimination of subsidies for the president’s pet projects such as renewable fuels, electric vehicles, wind and solar. Throw in clean coal and natural gas, too. That would be the right move for the American taxpayers. But good policy isn’t their goal – vilifying an industry is their end game.

http://www.askheritage.org/whats-the-truth-behind-oil-subsidies/

Obviously Heritage has to include alternatives with big-oil interests. It just affords them the opportunity to be intellectually honest over big-oil subsidies.

 

[soil margin]

We don't subsidize oil. Do some research.

It's like ringing the bell! once rung, it cannot be un-rung.

So our lair in chief obama says so, greenies pick up on the bullshit via msnbc and believe it.

Pathetic. Do your own research and thinking on the subject and quit allowing people to plant bullshit falsities in your head.

There are NO oil subsidies. obama only says there are knowing a vast ocean of idiots will believe that shit and cry for justice against oil companies.

Our country suffers due to this sheer ignorance, and our government depends on it.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Go look up the price for a gallon of gas anywhere in the world that's not the U.S. It's not higher because they are socialists...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/29/usa-oil-ryan-idUSN2825309920110429

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/nation/la-na-oil-spill-subsidies-20100525

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html

http://www.triplepundit.com/2008/05/u-s-oil-subsidies-need-to-go/

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/26/news/economy/oil_tax_breaks_obama/index.htm?hpt=T2

http://askville.amazon.com/explain-subsidy-oil-producing-firms/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=182382

Here's a quote for you:

The oil industry as a whole receives up to $113 billion per year in direct federal subsidies, according to experts. The 2005 Energy Bill is a prime example of how political dollars translate into legislation. The Energy Bill, in effect until 2010, authorized $4 billion in federal subsidies to the oil and gas industry.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We don't subsidize oil. Do some research.

It's like ringing the bell! once rung, it cannot be un-rung.

So our lair in chief obama says so, greenies pick up on the bullshit via msnbc and believe it.

Pathetic. Do your own research and thinking on the subject and quit allowing people to plant bullshit falsities in your head.

There are NO oil subsidies. obama only says there are knowing a vast ocean of idiots will believe that shit and cry for justice against oil companies.

Our country suffers due to this sheer ignorance, and our government depends on it.

If your arguments weren't so politicized, you wouldn't reject realities past and present.

Do some research = dis facts that don't gel with yer ideology.

 

[Frozenguy]

Ok, I did a few calculations to show what solar thermal energy can do for the USA.

A thermal powerplant like Andasol 1 in Spain delivers 50MW of power. The USA have a peak electrical power consumtion of arround 800000MW. This means you'll need about 16000 times the size of that spanish powerplant to deliver all the energy you need.

Andasol 1 is about 2km² big, that means you'll need about 32000km² of solar thermal power plants. I know thats pretty big but compared to the size of Texas, thats just 4,6%.

If you wouldn't, and that's what I'd recommend you to do, install that power plants all in Texas but arround the USA, that would be 0,3% of the total size.

Tell me how this is a problem? Don't you guys have a few deserts you could spare? Just mount the parabol mirrors a little bit higher an you can herd sheep an cattle underneath them.

Sure, there are quite a few problems with this idea but it is for sure worth considering it.

BTW: I'm talking about powerplants which store the daylight and produce the power round the clock.

Actually the US uses about 4119 billion kilowatt hours per year for 2008. http://www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html
Which is about 470 gigawatts of power.

Considering the Andasol generates 50 megawatts of power, we need 9400 Andasol power plants.

Each powerplant takes up roughly 65 hectacres of land which is the equivalent of 650,000 square meters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_Solar_Power_Station
Multiply that by 9400 and you get 6.11 billion square meters required for the plants.

Texas is only 0.696 billion square meters.
We need just about 9 texas' to get the land required and that is only half the power you quoted.

The problem with your calculation is the size you used for andasol. It isn't 2,000,000 square meters but more like 650,000 square meters.


Also, EACH andasol unit evaporates 2384 CUBIC METERS of water everyday which equates to about 870,000 cubic meters per year.

We would need to evaporate 8.18 BILLION CUBIC METERS of water every year.. That is 2 trillion gallons of water per year. That is absolutely ridiculous lol.


Then you have to figure in costs and power to pump all that water to these various sites.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

FG, why is perfect the enemy of better?

 

[alkalien]

1 km² = 1000000 m²

Texas is 695.621 km² = 695.621.000.000m² big

 

[Frozenguy]

1 km² = 1000000 m²

Texas is 695.621 km² = 695.621.000.000m² big

Ouch.. That hurts lol... I know that but somehow it missed one of my calculations.
I was feeling a disturbance in the force.. I just couldn't pinpoint it lol. Was hovering over that submit button for a moment..

Ok.. well this result doesn't sit right with me because it seems too small. But it appears with these plants maybe only one percent of texas would be used.. Damn conversions..

But we would still need to evaporate 2 trillion gallons of water per year.

 

[Frozenguy]

FG, why is perfect the enemy of better?

Who says its better though?

We don't have the best weather here in America. So in the real world, we would need more then 9400 of those plants.

It's getting there, but it isn't there yet. We need more money in its development.

 

[alkalien]

Ouch.. That hurts lol... I know that but somehow it missed one of my calculations.
I was feeling a disturbance in the force.. I just couldn't pinpoint it lol. Was hovering over that submit button for a moment..

Ok.. well this result doesn't sit right with me because it seems too small. But it appears with these plants maybe only one percent of texas would be used.. Damn conversions..

But we would still need to evaporate 2 trillion gallons of water per year.

I did serach and recalculate for quite some time. Really hate km², they are by far to bit. Lucky for me, on the german Andasol Wikipedia entry they state the size beeing 2km² so I was pretty sure my calculations couldn't be that far of. Although it seemed too small for me too.

The water is an serious issue! 5l/kWh is huge, even nuclear plants only use 3,2l/kWh. I was secretly hoping nobody would find that drawback

I can't imagine how to connect a powerplant that huge to the grid, Texas would all be power lines...

But hey! Let's give it time, they will make them better every day!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Who says its better though?

finite supply of fossil fuels

less carbon emissions

more energy independence

increased commerce

We don't have the best weather here in America. So in the real world, we would need more then 9400 of those plants.

It's getting there, but it isn't there yet. We need more money in it.

So we're acclimatized to carbon? The real world doesn't offer you're supposition that one alternative replace carbon energy.

Alternatives are not only getting there, they're being implemented. Corporations aren't investing their record-capital in alternatives of similar scale. We'll get their capital when profits motivate them. Until then, subsidies entice those willing to venture into positive directions.

Hope you're not counting on capitalism alone to manage transitions.

 

[Tripp Inmiasov]

The answer to unlimited, unrestricted energy will be realized when gravitational forces are fully understood and explained. Understanding and utilizing the gravity/anti-gravity forces and the magnetic/anti-magnetic forces will solve many, if not all, energy issues.

These forces control almost everthing in our known universe and we have known about them for thousands of years. With all of our knowledge, tools and research, we have yet to explain how it works.

 

[Frozenguy]

I did serach and recalculate for quite some time. Really hate km², they are by far to bit. Lucky for me, on the german Andasol Wikipedia entry they state the size beeing 2km² so I was pretty sure my calculations couldn't be that far of. Although it seemed too small for me too.

But hey! Let's give it time, they will make them better every day!

From what I gathered, the 2 square kilometer is for andasol sites 1,2, and 3 for a combined power of 150MW.

And yea I agree with the bolded. Now that we are kicking it into high gear, tech should become even more awesome.

 

[Frozenguy]

finite supply of fossil fuels

less carbon emissions

more energy independence

increased commerce

Well sure. Those are pros, and they are good, but we have to weigh it with the cons to get the whole picture.

So we're acclimatized to carbon? The real world doesn't offer you're supposition that one alternative replace carbon energy.

Alternatives are not only getting there, they're being implemented. Corporations aren't investing their record-capital in alternatives of similar scale. We'll get their capital when profits motivate them. Until then, subsidies entice those willing to venture into positive directions.

Hope you're not counting on capitalism alone to manage transitions.

No, I totally agree. I'm not saying I think we should go all one way. If we lived in my world (hee hee) it would probably be

nuclear (majority)/fossil/hydro(dams)/"renewable"s for grid.
Fossil for cars/planes/trains/trucks
nuclear for ships (diesel perhaps for small ships).

I just think its useful to see what we would have to do to replace fossil with solar. Seeing this extreme limit helps you balance out between other things.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The answer to unlimited, unrestricted energy will be realized when gravitational forces are fully understood and explained. Understanding and utilizing the gravity/anti-gravity forces and the magnetic/anti-magnetic forces will solve many, if not all, energy issues.

These forces control almost everthing in our known universe and we have known about them for thousands of years. With all of our knowledge, tools and research, we have yet to explain how it works.

We have multiple, unlimited sources of renewable energy. We just haven't advanced the scale of harnessing required to rely on single mechanism.

Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal all have the potential to end dependency on carbon. It's the practical applications that need to advance in order to make fewer solutions scalable.

IMO, conservation... one of our strongest real-time opportunities has always been in our back pocket. However, conservation doesn't jibe with American conservatives. Ain't that special.

 

[alkalien]

No, I totally agree. I'm not saying I think we should go all one way. If we lived in my world (hee hee) it would probably be

nuclear (majority)/fossil/hydro(dams)/"renewable"s for grid.
Fossil for cars/planes/trains/trucks
nuclear for ships (diesel perhaps for small ships).

I just think its useful to see what we would have to do to replace fossil with solar. Seeing this extreme limit helps you balance out between other things.

I'm with you until there, nuclear power is not acceptable at all.

I grew up with my parents not knowing whether we did play too long under the Tschernobyl fallout. I know about the 700 incidents in french nuclear power plants every year! We saw a german one melt because of cold temperatures at night. We saw two powerplants go up and cause serious problems, Three Miles Island did completly burst because of luck!

No, no nuclear power what so ever!

 

[Frozenguy]

I'm with you until there, nuclear power is not acceptable at all.

I grew up with my parents not knowing whether we did play too long under the Tschernobyl fallout. I know about the 700 incidents in french nuclear power plants every year! We saw a german one melt because of cold temperatures at night. We saw two powerplants go up and cause serious problems, Three Miles Island did completly burst because of luck!

No, no nuclear power what so ever!

Yes, tragic events have occurred. Many due to operator error, many due to design error. But this is relatively new and at the same time revolutionary.

To be able to generate so much power from such little amount of mass is an amazing technology, to put it very lightly. A technology that needs to be treated differently than the others.

I can understand your feelings towards nuclear, but I feel it must be pushed on and developed with safety as number one priority. Power generation as priority number 2.

Since it only takes one incident (that could be caused by relatively minor event) to cause harm, if nuclear is to work we need to have serious safeguard requirements. IMO, Japan should of had a 15-20 meter seawall. 7 meters is just too small.

The reason I say nuclear is because I have faith in the future designs. And I have faith in current modern designs as long as they are maintained and operated appropriately.

Chernobyl was a mess. Those were french designs stolen out of France's trash bin. Not only that, safety measures were not built to save on cost. On top of that, the electrical engineers that caused the crises had no business doing what they were doing. No nuclear engineer was present.



Most importantly, at the end of the day, I feel we need to develop it for when we come in contact with space materials like Helium 3 for example. More potent then our current fuels and virtually no radioactive spent fuel. The radioactivity inside the fusion chamber is generally around 98% "cleaner" than conventional fission chambers because of the significant reduction in neutrons. Eliminates the majority of problems in my opinion..


It's somewhat difficult to support nuclear because of all the deaths/sickness. But I feel if we do it right and respectfully, we can gain a lot with not as much danger as before. But to do that, safety has to be priority number 1 with power generation at number 2.

 

[Tripp Inmiasov]

We have multiple, unlimited sources of renewable energy. We just haven't advanced the scale of harnessing required to rely on single mechanism.

Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal all have the potential to end dependency on carbon. It's the practical applications that need to advance in order to make fewer solutions scalable.

IMO, conservation... one of our strongest real-time opportunities has always been in our back pocket. However, conservation doesn't jibe with American conservatives. Ain't that special.

Most of the energy humans create is used to overcome the force of gravity or attraction.

Why would it not make sense to understand and utilize these forces rather than waste time and capital to make a mess of our planet?

 

[alkalien]

Yes, tragic events have occurred. Many due to operator error, many due to design error. But this is relatively new and at the same time revolutionary.

To be able to generate so much power from such little amount of mass is an amazing technology, to put it very lightly. A technology that needs to be treated differently than the others.


At the end of the day, I feel we need to develop it for when we come in contact with space materials like Helium 3 for example. More potent then our current fuels and virtually no radioactive spent fuel. The radioactivity inside the fusion chamber is generally around 98% "cleaner" than conventional fission chambers because of the significant reduction in neutrons.


It's somewhat difficult to support nuclear because of all the deaths/sickness. But I feel if we do it right and respectfully, we can gain a lot with not as much danger as before. But to do that, safety has to be priority number 1 with power generation at number 2.

The risk part is just one part, that's something you have to decide for your own. I can totaly understand people saying that they accept. I can't so that's simple for me. Nothing I would really argue about. It's just, the unpredicted can and does happen and I don't wanna be where it happens.

I dispute that they are econimcal. Let me just throw the details which make me really wonder at you. I'm cool which what ever the conclusion is you come to.

No insurance company insures those plants, they tend to do the right thing...

No modern country is building a nuclear power plant at this moment besides France and Finland. Those work on the new european super plant. Siemens was part of this joint venture and pulled out before Fukushima happened.

Every year in summer the french get problems because their nuclear power plants stop working because of the heat. Every winter the frech get into problem because their nuclear power plants have to shut down because it's to cold. They get 60% of their energy from nuclear power and can only import 9GW of power so they are pretty nervous about that.

Imagine this one guy, who protects the dispossal of the burnt nuclear fuel. He sits there doing nothing but protecting for about 1 Mio years. Which is a pretty fair assumption. He costs like 30 000€ or $ a year. For 1 million years that's 30 billion € or $. I can't imagine this can be enconomical.


I could go on for a bit but am far too stoned. As said, just giving you the details, I don't think there are either right or wrong opinions, just the facts I think about....