KCRag Forum

Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Still Dominate

    Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy  through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.

KCMax wrote: Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Still Dominate

I am not sure if I would call a tax break, where American companies deduct production taxes they pay overseas from their income, a subsidy. 

Highlander wrote: I am not sure if I would call a tax break, where American companies deduct production taxes they pay overseas from their income, a subsidy.   

that accounts for the entire $557 billion?

DaveKCMO wrote: that accounts for the entire $557 billion?

From the article:  We may not bankroll gas-pump purchases the way Egypt or Venezuela do, but an analysis last year from the Environmental Law Institute found that the U.S. government offered $72 billion in incentives for oil, gas, and coal producers between 2002 and 2008. Most of that was in the form of 23 different tax credits, especially the credit for overseas production ($15.3 billion) and a credit for production of non-conventional fuel ($14.1 billion). The rest was in the form of grants, R&D money, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.????????:  

Most of the "subsidies" are not in the US.  In the US, a lot is in the form of tax credits including 15.3 billion in tax credits for overseas production (taxes) which is not a subsidy, it's standard business practice for all industry operating overseas, you do not pay taxes in the US on taxes paid to a foriegn entity.  The 14.1 billion is a tax subsidy for developing non-conventional oil and gas.  That's only 2 of 23 alleged tax credits that are discussed in any detail at all.  As for grants and R&D money, I'd like to see that stated as to what it actually is because I would suspect it amounts to very little if anything at all.  There is ~ 34 billion dollars of oil stored in the strategic petroleum reserve and I suspect they may be adding that dollar amount in as a subsidy as well (which is like saying the government subsidizes Dell computers because they use them in their offices). 

Highlander wrote: (which is like saying the government subsidizes Dell computers because they use them in their offices). 

Which is what KCMO did years ago when Gateway moved to the West Bottoms.  Every computer bought was a Gateway.

Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover

45% renewable right now.

Freakin' Commies!

How the US can end its' dependence on foreign oil.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/07 ... on-foreig/

Friedman: Their Moon Shot and Ours

China is doing moon shots. Yes, that?s plural. When I say ?moon shots? I mean big, multibillion-dollar, 25-year-horizon, game-changing investments. China has at least four going now: one is building a network of ultramodern airports; another is building a web of high-speed trains connecting major cities; a third is in bioscience, where the Beijing Genomics Institute this year ordered 128 DNA sequencers ? from America ? giving China the largest number in the world in one institute to launch its own stem cell/genetic engineering industry; and, finally, Beijing just announced that it was providing $15 billion in seed money for the country?s leading auto and battery companies to create an electric car industry, starting in 20 pilot cities. In essence, China Inc. just named its dream team of 16-state-owned enterprises to move China off oil and into the next industrial growth engine: electric cars.

Not to worry. America today also has its own multibillion-dollar, 25-year-horizon, game-changing moon shot: fixing Afghanistan.

KCMax wrote: Friedman: Their Moon Shot and Ours

China is also tying up as much of the remainder of the world's oil supply as they can.  Nearly everywhere western companies go (and then some), the Chinese are there too and they aren't bound by the same economic considerations that western companies are.  They aren't necassarily moving off oil, they just realize that it's not going to be around all that much longer.

Some changes coming:

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/listarti ... &GT1=22009

The electrics are coming! By the end of the year, at least six battery-powered vehicles will be on the U.S. market. The cars will finally go from revolving on show stands to dealer floors, and we'll finally know if consumers mean it when they say in opinion polls that they'll consider an EV for their next purchase. Most of these cars will charge in five or six hours on 220-volt home current, and overnight on 110. Fifteen-minute fast charging (480 volts) may be available at some public stations, maybe even at your favorite big-box store

Wow, if they would put credit card operated 480v "quick charge" stations in every walmart parking lot, we could continue the American dream.

By the end of the year, at least six battery-powered vehicles will be on the U.S. market.

That will still leave a big waiting list. You would think they would want to mass produce these.

I mean six cars.

Not much.

cars.

shinatoo wrote: That will still leave a big waiting list. You would think they would want to mass produce these.

I mean six cars.

Not much.

cars.

Graph shows energy consumption for transporation per capita of world cities.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/urban-d ... onsumption

FangKC wrote: Graph shows energy consumption for transporation per capita of world cities.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/urban-d ... onsumption

That's pretty telling, Fang.  Where do you suppose KC would fall?  More, or less, than Denver?

I find the urban densities very puzzling.  How do they figure NY as half as dense as London or a third as dense as Vienna?  If they are saddling NY with all of the suburbs and bed room communities in the tri-state region than they ought to be hanging the etire Thames Valley on London as well. 

LenexatoKCMO wrote: I find the urban densities very puzzling.  How do they figure NY as half as dense as London or a third as dense as Vienna?  If they are saddling NY with all of the suburbs and bed room communities in the tri-state region than they ought to be hanging the etire Thames Valley on London as well. 

I've been to Hong Kong.  It is dense, but it is not 15+ times more dense than NYC.  In fact, NYC can be seen as more dense depending on which areas are included.  It is also odd that they are using data from 2007 and 1989 for the graph.  Also, they excluded everything South of the USA in the Americas.