Excellent use of the Asinine tag.

Tr0mBoNe: Excellent use of the Asinine tag.

dumbass tag (for Bush) would have worked as well.

Hey now, that gasoline won't pump itself.

ShawnDoc: Hey now, that gasoline won't pump itself.

True, but in communist Russia, gasoline pumps you!

Yeah lets end those becuase anything to raise gas prices.

Regardless of their profit, they will pass any lack of subsidaries on to you some how.

/not saying its right, just saying Capitalism is run on greed.

Actually, the bill can't get through Congress. It made it through the house twice last year, but failed in the Senate. link

helix400: Actually, the bill can't get through Congress. It made it through the house twice last year, but failed in the Senate. link

If I recall correctly it failed in the Senate because Bush told them upfront he would veto it.

Solar and Wind credits are all good and dandy but only if it runs into the $10-$15k range for home solar installations. Distributed peak energy systems are a great thing to reduce grid demand. The money on R&D to make Solar and Wind the baseline energy source is wasted however, an intermittent energy source should never provide base power. Fund spheromaks, Bussard Reactor research, more efficient fission plants...

Granted, it's a much better source of energy, but giving the oil companies a break helps everyone, whereas spending tax dollars on a tiny little company like this really only benefits a few people. Sure, if we could switch everything over to wind and solar tomorrow I'd be all for lots of tax breaks and subsidies, but for now I prefer keeping the price of gas as low as possible.

guesser: Granted, it's a much better source of energy, but giving the oil companies a break helps everyone, whereas spending tax dollars on a tiny little company like this really only benefits a few people. Sure, if we could switch everything over to wind and solar tomorrow I'd be all for lots of tax breaks and subsidies, but for now I prefer keeping the price of gas as low as possible.


Yea all those breaks the oil companies have right now helps me a shiat ton at the gas pump this morning.

I'm sorry, but if it was helping, I wouldn't be paying 200% more per gallon then I was 3 years ago. fark the oil companies. Even if it would help a tiny little bit the in the short term, in the long term it would just be more of the same.


We have to start working on the path on energy sources that does not revolve around a limited materiel only found in certain parts of the world. The common argument is that it would take 20 years to see a real benefit from it, however if we don't start it soon, when? If the USA had been awakened enough back in the last gas crisis in the 80's and done something about it, we would now be well on our way to that goal.


We have to start now, right now when the American people has a whole see the problem.

JaMorg: If I recall correctly it failed in the Senate because Bush told them upfront he would veto it.

Ya, I think you're right. I'm looking around for the reason for the veto, but it's hard to find among all the advocacy sites.

So far from what I can gather, the Bush administration definitely wants the Investment Tax Credits. He either 1) disagrees that it should be funded exclusively from oil and gas expenses and instead favors of a fair sharing across the industry, or 2) disagrees with removing subsidies that tax exploration and enhanced production on the reasoning that if we remove them, they won't be as likely to explore for more oil.

Ok, I found it. Stupid me, I finally figured out I should go to whitehouse.gov instead of searching with Google.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-2/saphr5351-r.pdf

"Specifically, the Administration strongly opposes the bill's repeal of the manufacturing deduction for a segment of a single industry. This targeted tax increase would reduce the Nation's energy security rather than improve it. Industries should be taxed on a level playing field, and that field should be leveled by lowering rates, not by raising them; such increases would create an even greater disadvantage with respect to foreign competitors.

In addition, the Administration strongly opposes changes to the foreign tax credit rules related to foreign oil and gas extraction income and foreign oil-related income. The changes in the bill would disadvantage U.S.-based companies by reducing their ability to compete for investments in foreign energy-related projects. Ensuring adequate supplies of oil and natural gas from both domestic and international sources is imperative to meet ever growing demand even as we work to diversify our portfolio of fuels. The Administration also has serious concerns that certain other tax provisions may prompt our trading partners to raise questions with regard to compliance with World Trade Organization rules...."

A couple more detailed policy reasons exist, but I didn't copy and paste it.

guesser: Granted, it's a much better source of energy, but giving the oil companies a break helps everyone, whereas spending tax dollars on a tiny little company like this really only benefits a few people.

I would rather that money goes to small companies who invest in renewable energy here in America, providing jobs to the manufacturers and installers while reducing our dependency on foreign sources of power, than give it to a multinational oil company. I'd rather support distributed power generation, which reduces the strain on our aging grid infrastructure.

With recent developments, renewable is really the way to go. For example, thisk (new window) story talks about a new wind turbine that costs $1/watt to build. I'm not sure what scale that's available on, but the article mentions a 250kW version for $250,000.

For reference, a quick search on the costs for nuclear power yields this (new window) story, from 2005, which claims a 1,400mW plant would cost $2.6 billion. For $2.6 billion, we could build 10,400 of those new windmills, providing up to 2,600mW. That's a peak number of course, and depending on location you may not get nearly as much out of it, but in any case we're close to reaching parity. And that's without taking into account the costs of waste storage, not to mention economies of scale in producing the turbines.

guesser: Granted, it's a much better source of energy, but giving the oil companies a break helps everyone, whereas spending tax dollars on a tiny little company like this really only benefits a few people. Sure, if we could switch everything over to wind and solar tomorrow I'd be all for lots of tax breaks and subsidies, but for now I prefer keeping the price of gas as low as possible.

The break you are giving the oil-companies that supposedly helps everyone who exactly do you belive is paying for it? The tax payers perhaps? I am not suggesting that the whole thing is a zero sum game because I know it is a lot more compilicated than that, but right now it looks like the American people are giving big oil money in hopes that they will have to pay less at the gas pump later. Since you have to trust that the oil companies will actually fully pass on those breaks to the consumer (which you have to admit is less than likely), a better way might be to keep the money in the first place.

The breaks for solar and wind power won't have any immediate effect but they will spur investment in these sectors which in turn will spur R&D and hopefully lead to much more capable industry down the road.

You can either invest into the future or take on more debt to give the oil companies in hopes that they will give you a break in return now. One of these is more shortdighted and naive then the other.

You mean the people who are actually supplying huge amounts of energy are getting more subsidies than the people supplying tiny amounts of energy?

I'm shocked.

But, but, but investing taxpayer money in new technologies never ever spurs progress!

I'm all for wind power. I drive by wind farms on a regular basis. They are sweet. And I will be installing one if I can ever possibly afford it ($50,000+).

But even the environmentalists don't like them because some shiat bird or two per year fly into them and die.

Make up your mind.

A huge "wind farm/bird deathtrap" or a huge "Alaskan oil field/moose deathtrap".

Or maybe an "animal deathtrap/your way of life deathtrap".

Personally I vote for humans, not animals.

That headline is awesome...If it's wind and solar it's "Investment Tax Credits". If it's Big Oil it's "subsidies".

/Go compost something submittard.

2and4: But even the environmentalists don't like them because some shiat bird or two per year fly into them and die.

I'm an environmentalist. I'm a vegan. I love birds, they're some of the most beautiful creatures I've ever seen and I would never wish harm on them.

The argument that turbines kill birds is stupid. Sure, it can happen... But most large, modern turbines spin at such a slow speed that birds can avoid them. Not only that, but migratory patterns are now taken into consideration before building in many cases.

Donald_McRonald: ShawnDoc: Hey now, that gasoline won't pump itself.

True, but in communist Russia, gasoline pumps you!

Oh, we're bringing this back are we?

ryebread: 2and4: But even the environmentalists don't like them because some shiat bird or two per year fly into them and die.

I'm an environmentalist. I'm a vegan. I love birds, they're some of the most beautiful creatures I've ever seen and I would never wish harm on them.

The argument that turbines kill birds is stupid. Sure, it can happen... But most large, modern turbines spin at such a slow speed that birds can avoid them. Not only that, but migratory patterns are now taken into consideration before building in many cases.

You know, I'm usually pretty violently opposed with agreeing with vegans on moral grounds, but yeah, you're right on this.

/plus, the dumb ones it kills helps evolution!
//just once, I'd like to talk to a vegan without knowing they're a vegan.
///Haha, it's possible I have!
////slashies, fooor youuuuu.

ryebread: The argument that turbines kill birds is stupid. Sure, it can happen... But most large, modern turbines spin at such a slow speed that birds can avoid them. Not only that, but migratory patterns are now taken into consideration before building in many cases.

It should also be mentioned that vertical axis wind turbines do not present the same danger as propeller driven generators.

ryebread: guesser: Granted, it's a much better source of energy, but giving the oil companies a break helps everyone, whereas spending tax dollars on a tiny little company like this really only benefits a few people.

I would rather that money goes to small companies who invest in renewable energy here in America, providing jobs to the manufacturers and installers while reducing our dependency on foreign sources of power, than give it to a multinational oil company. I'd rather support distributed power generation, which reduces the strain on our aging grid infrastructure.

With recent developments, renewable is really the way to go. For example, thisk (new window) story talks about a new wind turbine that costs $1/watt to build. I'm not sure what scale that's available on, but the article mentions a 250kW version for $250,000.

For reference, a quick search on the costs for nuclear power yields this (new window) story, from 2005, which claims a 1,400mW plant would cost $2.6 billion. For $2.6 billion, we could build 10,400 of those new windmills, providing up to 2,600mW. That's a peak number of course, and depending on location you may not get nearly as much out of it, but in any case we're close to reaching parity. And that's without taking into account the costs of waste storage, not to mention economies of scale in producing the turbines.

Wind is not reliable enough to provide more than 10% of a grid, if that.

Unless you manage to figure out a way to reliably and cheaply store Gigawatt-hours of electricity, there will always be a requirement for extremely large, steady-state power producers- a role best filled by nuclear or coal.

Given that it takes burning a 100 mile long line of coal ships to equal the energy contained in one 12' cube reactor (typical size, roughly speaking), the 'waste' problem is a bit different than you probably realize.

That is, when you compare viable alternatives to one another.

Moreover, what we call 'waste' the Canadians burn in heavy water reactors and the French reprocess. When we cry about 100,000 year safety requirements for yucca, we forget that spent fuel is about as radioactive as the ore it was drawn from after a few centuries. The 'nuclear waste' problem in the United States is based upon a set of presumptions that can disappear in a few years.

dfenstrate: Wind is not reliable enough to provide more than 10% of a grid, if that.

Unless you manage to figure out a way to reliably and cheaply store Gigawatt-hours of electricity, there will always be a requirement for extremely large, steady-state power producers- a role best filled by nuclear or coal.

Given that it takes burning a 100 mile long line of coal ships to equal the energy contained in one 12' cube reactor (typical size, roughly speaking), the 'waste' problem is a bit different than you probably realize.

That is, when you compare viable alternatives to one another.

Moreover, what we call 'waste' the Canadians burn in heavy water reactors and the French reprocess. When we cry about 100,000 year safety requirements for yucca, we forget that spent fuel is about as radioactive as the ore it was drawn from after a few centuries. The 'nuclear waste' problem in the United States is based upon a set of presumptions that can disappear in a few years.

Wind and solar are certainly things we should be taking advantage of though. It'd be stupid not to have rooftop wind turbines in Chicago or rooftop solar panels in Arizona once the technology gets cheaper. Even if they alleviate 10% of the local demand, that's huge, especially if it covers the region's growth.

I'd like to see a baseline of nuclear and clean coal plants to supply basic load, and then distributed solar or wind generators to fill in the gaps. Battery technology is advancing quickly due to the hybrid vehicle craze, so energy storage will get cheaper and more efficient.

I think canceling FutureGen was a huge mistake because the NIMBY assholes are going to choke nuclear development for the next few decades. We really could use clean coal tech to tide us over until we get more nuke plants running.

dfenstrate: Moreover, what we call 'waste' the Canadians burn in heavy water reactors and the French reprocess.

Absolutely. The French are really the ones to look to when it comes to nuclear power. The nuclear plants that we have in the US are using ancient designs compared to them. I'm not in favor of creating more waste, largely because I don't like the idea of shipping it through population centers, and also probably because I grew up not too far from Hanford... That said, I wonder how much more energy we could pull out of all the "waste" we already have, if we were to invest in reprocessing.

Renewables are the future, and I think that's where we should focus, but I'd still like to see some money put into tokamaks or some other technology that can use the waste our nuclear plants have already produced. We have that shiat sitting around no matter what, we should get as much power out of it as possible.

"Hopefully, GE's foray into this mess will mark a change in the wind, and we won't have to deal with a lapse in the only big steps the U.S. government has yet made to promote renewable energy."

What GE wants, GE gets - GE help us all!

ryebread: The French are really the ones to look to when it comes to nuclear power.

And if they ever have a problem, what the heck, the prevailing winds head straight for Germany.

Unless you manage to figure out a way to reliably and cheaply store Gigawatt-hours of electricity, there will always be a requirement for extremely large, steady-state power producers- a role best filled by nuclear or coal.

Ausra Corporation
Brightsource Energy

Two companies both with proven salt cavern technology for using solar to drive a baseload plant. Brought to you by California's renewable portfolio standard. Construction begins in 2009.

I had a small solar business during the Carter administration. Had 10 guys working for me. Put in over 100 systems. Then Ronny got elected, cancelled solar tax credits, and almost made me homeless. Donated everything I could to the local trade school before the IRS came knocking. That was 25+ years ago and the donated solar panels are still working great (during the day).

Hiddenrite: Yeah lets end those becuase anything to raise gas prices.

Regardless of their profit, they will pass any lack of subsidaries on to you some how.

/not saying its right, just saying Capitalism is run on greed.

Yes, but then they have to charge for it up front. None of the "hidden cost" bulls**t.

$40,000,000,000.00 profit isn't enough...
think of his children...well maybe not

If wind power was viable it wouldn't need a taxpayer handout. Wind power is and always will be a joke. No way it will ever provide a drop in the bucket of our energy needs.

How about some tax incentives to nuclear? God forbid we actually use technologically advanced power sources than going back to windmills.

Progressive indeed.

MilesTeg: If wind power was viable it wouldn't need a taxpayer handout. Wind power is and always will be a joke. No way it will ever provide a drop in the bucket of our energy needs.

How about some tax incentives to nuclear? God forbid we actually use technologically advanced power sources than going back to windmills.

Progressive indeed.

So, wind power will never provide a drop in the bucket of our energy needs?
I'm sure you have some kind of documentation to back that assertion up.
Would you be so kind as to post it, you know, so we can check your math?

wait i dont get why companies with huge profits ALSO get tax credits and incentives?