News Huge Energy Bill - Has House Approval

[loseyourname]

Wow. If you plug "solar cell manufacturers" into google, and take the first hit, you go here:

http://www.solarbuzz.com/solarindex/CellManufacturers.htm

And *very quickly* see that the vast majority of companies are not US based.

So! I would suggest funding the few US based manufacturers.

I know you're big on solar, Patty, but don't forget where you live. It isn't a feasible option nationwide, especially on the northeastern seaboard, where most of the people in this country live. Remember the disaster that was the Citicorp center?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Come on, SOS. In business, as in psychology, positive reinforcement generally works better than negative reinforcement. How do you treat your kids?



The expense of the American citizen? You don't think the American citizen has anything to gain from the development of new and better energy technologies? Of course there is back-scratching going on. There always is in politics. Such a thing doesn't preclude a positive impact on the citizenry.

Now you're taking the piss aren't you?

We all know about Reaganomics and other forms of fantasy fiction.

Reality is ... when there are extra profits, they pay dividends.

As far as how they explain it ... creative accounting.

Yeah ... the average American Citizen has TONS to gain from alternate fuel sources and he will eventually get there ... but only after 'big energy' has bled the well dry.

Given the record of most of your large corporations in the USA, when in the last few months do you think they actually grew the moral backbone you attribute to them?

 

[loseyourname]

Once again, Smoking Man, I have to ask what the hell you are talking about. I've said nothing about any trickle down employment theories, stock payoffs, or moral backbones. I've made several assertions. To sum up:

1) If you're going to give breaks to energy companies, you should give breaks to companies with a track record of developing successful technology.

2) If you want to develop feasible alternative sources - which right now, equal nuclear and hydrogen - you give money to the companies that have been developing those technologies successfully.

3) It would be irresponsible of the government to invest large sums of money in startup companies that may or may not fare well and may or may not develop any usable technology.

That's about it. I don't see the problem everyone has here. We're trying to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, right? Well, good. This bill gives only 19% of its money to fossil fuel companies, most of which I would imagine is to tap into natural gas resources, which are still relatively abundant and are clean burning. Do you have any specific objections to this bill? Do you have any specific counterarguments to my claims? Or are you just going to continue to tangentially bash everything big-business and Republican, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with this bill or anything in this thread?

And what the hell do you mean by I'm taking a piss? I've never heard anyone use that expression except to refer to the emptying of one's bladder, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[selfAdjoint]

So if we want to invest in spacetravel, just as an example of your reasoning, Lose, then we should throw money at NASA, which has all that experience? Instead of investing in some risky startup like, say, Rutan?

 

[loseyourname]

That is what the government does, isn't it? As far as I know, NASA is entirely funded through taxpayer money.

If you want to invest, I recommend taking a risk, just so long as you do your research and diversify your portfolio to mitigate that risk. It doesn't work the same with tax breaks and subsidies.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Once again, Smoking Man, I have to ask what the hell you are talking about. I've said nothing about any trickle down employment theories, stock payoffs, or moral backbones. I've made several assertions. To sum up:

1) If you're going to give breaks to energy companies, you should give breaks to companies with a track record of developing successful technology.

Great. And 19% goes to the oil companies who's last major development was unleaded.

2) If you want to develop feasible alternative sources - which right now, equal nuclear and hydrogen - you give money to the companies that have been developing those technologies successfully.

I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?

Hydrogen great ... http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/03/env_hydrogen_fu.php Now when do we realize that this is not a 'nationality thing'. Japan decided to come to the fore in computer design and mandated that ALL major computer companies contribute manpower and funding to a central 'Japanese' consortium for this purpose.

What we NEED since this is a global problem is an intelligent approach to a global solution modeled on the Japanese 'computer' consortium.

2050 is the date projected for the collapse of the oil industry. Between now and that time things are going to heat up very quickly. We have already seen the USA block the purchase of UNOCAL by a Chinese company when they declared oil a National Security Issue.

Just when are things going to get REALLY nasty? When do we act? ... When the rockets are launched or NOW when we can prevent the crisis?

3) It would be irresponsible of the government to invest large sums of money in startup companies that may or may not fare well and may or may not develop any usable technology.

Then again, that company on the 'treehugger' link above probably won't even show a blip on the taxation system but they DO have a working prototype.

The problem with 'taxation rebate schemes' is that they rarely deliver the funding to the right people. Another inherent flaw is that as the oil gets more expensive when it becomes rarer, revenues go up along with taxes along with tax rebate percentages.

Given my druthers, I would much rather that the equivalent amount rebated to big oil be sunk into that Intelligent Energy company or the like in the USA. This can't be created with some form of automated system that does not compute in a 'result' variable into the equation. Invariably, anyone with a good accountant will claw back more money than they deserve.

That's about it. I don't see the problem everyone has here. We're trying to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, right? Well, good. This bill gives only 19% of its money to fossil fuel companies, most of which I would imagine is to tap into natural gas resources, which are still relatively abundant and are clean burning. Do you have any specific objections to this bill? Do you have any specific counterarguments to my claims? Or are you just going to continue to tangentially bash everything big-business and Republican, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with this bill or anything in this thread?

Well, I must admit that the larger funding will end up in the area of the companies with the largest revenues. Now, a quick review of just who those companies are and the 'pull' they have had with the government in general, just who do you think they will be?

Do you think that companies like the Enrons and Halliburtons will be completely on the Up and Up (one gone bust after illegal activities in accounting and the other repeatedly fined for illegal activities)? Do you think the same White House that allowed Ken Lay to choose the EPA inspection team isn't going to do something creative?

Good god man, even some of the funding provisions in 'Homeland Security' for costal defense was diverted into ALABAMA ... a landlocked state!

Trusting this legislation is like believing there were WMD in Iraq and that it wasn't about Iraq sitting on the second largest oil field in the world behind the Saudis.

And what the hell do you mean by I'm taking a piss? I've never heard anyone use that expression except to refer to the emptying of one's bladder, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

Sorry, I'll try not to use real English on you next time.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Once again, Smoking Man, I have to ask what the hell you are talking about. I've said nothing about any trickle down employment theories, stock payoffs, or moral backbones.

Oh, yes and before I forget ... there is an awful lot you do always gloss over.

The above list is the byproduct of the type of scheme that is being presented.

Each incarnation has had numerous names over the years but it all boils down to the same thing.

I am really surprised that Bush has been allowed to use it twice during his term. First the rebate to create jobs and now the rebate to create alternate energy. Wow.

It's a bit like The Longest Yard ... Just how many times must Americans take the ball in the nuts before you see a pattern forming and can predict the outcome?

Oh, and just so you know, Arthur Anderson designed the ethics course at Harvard.

"The problem is that the good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas reserves where there are democratic governments." Guess who said that and guess what he paid in fines while addressing the problem?

Capitalism is diametrically opposed to working in a democratic system. THAT's why the capitalists of America have abandoned America. They pursue the bottom line not fairness or honesty. That often takes them outside the USA and outside the law (In some circles it's called globalization and that is what all the protests are about. ).

 

[The Smoking Man]

Most of my knowledge of how they get funded comes from the dot.com boom here in the bay area in the nineties. That was funded almost entirely by venture capitalists. Heck, half the people starting the companies hadn't even completed their degrees. I'm pretty sure most biotech startups these days are started by university professors or clinical researchers that have been in the business a long time. It's likely that they largely fund themselves, but I really don't know. My roommate's father startups restaurants and bars and he gets his funding mostly from banks. I don't even know of any energy startups. What companies did you have in mind that you think should receive subsidies?

Oh, and as a final thought before I hit the sack. (That's a term meaning go to bed. And yes, I am 'taking the piss'.)

I received my education into just what 'big energy' does while working at American Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio for three years.

Most of the energy they create comes from burning coal.

Due to EPA guidelines, they were required to install what are called 'scrubbers' to prevent 'nasty things' from going into the air and burning the forests of Canada.

They installed them with grants from the feds.

They get turned on about once a year when there is an inspection. (There is never a surprise inspection by the way. They are always notified beforehand.)

They say they are 'too costly to run' and cut into the bottom line.

I remember going to a seminar one day as part of my employment there as a 'consultant' in how to make it past the press without actually saying anything incriminating.

But then, I'm sure your 'room-mate's dad's start-ups of restaurants and bars' is much richer than my experience specifying parts of the Swiss banking system in Frankfurt, Germany, too.

 

[pattylou]

I know you're big on solar, Patty, but don't forget where you live. It isn't a feasible option nationwide, especially on the northeastern seaboard, where most of the people in this country live. Remember the disaster that was the Citicorp center?

Doesn't matter. Do the same thing with wind, or hydraulic, or hydrogen, or...

And actually, there are solar success stories in Maine. Weird, eh? I think it is more generally useful than people think. I don't have statistics on hand, but was surprised a few months ago when I googled it.

 

[2CentsWorth]

In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton spoke about the Democrat platform and America's future. On the topic of energy, she shared a vision in which American companies would invent new forms of energy that not only would create jobs and profits within our country, but could become a new and wonderful export. She went on to say these are the kinds of things our country needs not only to recover economically and to end dependency on foreign oil, but to renew the American dream. In my mind this would mean giving assistance to start-ups that not only have a proven track record, but to properly reward those who have taken the initiative without federal bribery. Unfortunately the GOP view of the future is a continuation of multinational monopoly and global exploitation.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?

It never became nonviable. The predjudice against it is merely political. Advocate groups who react to the word nucleus rhe way 16th century Germans reacted to the word witch.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It never became nonviable. The predjudice against it is merely political. Advocate groups who react to the word nucleus rhe way 16th century Germans reacted to the word witch.

Unfortunately, we don't really have witches but I can point out Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Candu Reactors, Nuclear waste, dirty bombs, North Korea and Iran to name but a few.

Chernobyl in fact had a sister station however the ex-Soviets can't afford to decomission it.

I'll send you here: http://www.chernobyl.info/

Now prove there were witches in the 16th century.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Chernobyl was the bad old USSR design, Three Mile Island never hurt anybody. Nuclear weapons are not the same thing as nuclear power. No info on Candu. Nuclear waste can be handled as it is, but a better solution would be to build IFR reactors which can "eat" high-rad waste and produce low-rad waste that can be safely stored. Dirty bombs are an urban legend; once again, weapons and power are not reasonably connected. Take a gander over at the Nuclear Engineering subforum.

Your response reminds me of the sermons against witches that fired the people's imaginations back there in the 16th century.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Chernobyl was the bad old USSR design, Three Mile Island never hurt anybody. Nuclear weapons are not the same thing as nuclear power. No info on Candu. Nuclear waste can be handled as it is, but a better solution would be to build IFR reactors which can "eat" high-rad waste and produce low-rad waste that can be safely stored. Dirty bombs are an urban legend; once again, weapons and power are not reasonably connected. Take a gander over at the Nuclear Engineering subforum.

Your response reminds me of the sermons against witches that fired the people's imaginations back there in the 16th century.

I KNOW you'll love this image

I won't bother with the debate here.

It's raging in enough places.

Suffice it to say, I don't agree.

I'm surprised you have not heard of the Candu though!?

I just tried a search on 'Candu Reactor' and got glowing reports over a number of pages.

Then I did a search on'Candu Reactor Cracks' and was equally surprised.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Doncha LOVE Ben Sargent? http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20050802/sbs050801.gif

 

[loseyourname]

Great. And 19% goes to the oil companies who's last major development was unleaded.

Or funding the building of hydrogen fueled public transit fleets and fueling stations.

I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?

It's provided power to a large part of southern California for decades. Maybe if that company you worked for in Ohio had switched, we wouldn't have to worry about all the acid rain in Canada destroying lakes and rivers.

Well, I must admit that the larger funding will end up in the area of the companies with the largest revenues. Now, a quick review of just who those companies are and the 'pull' they have had with the government in general, just who do you think they will be?

Well, I just finished looking over the bill (it's extremely long and I couldn't read all of it) and I can see that there aren't any rebates whatsoever earmarked to any specific companies. Looks like this fuss over 'big energy' was nothing more than a fuss. The rebates are for any company or provider that meets certain standards. Very few have anything to do with oil. Most of the fossil fuel incentives have to do with running 'clean-burning' coal plants and tapping into natural gas resources.

And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes, which are focusing on hydroelectric and nuclear power, along with a huge number of conservation incentives, in this bill.

You might want to try reading the bill before you bash it next time.

Good god man, even some of the funding provisions in 'Homeland Security' for costal defense was diverted into ALABAMA ... a landlocked state!

Alabama is on the gulf coast, genius.

Sorry, I'll try not to use real English on you next time.

How do you expect me to be familiar with a colloquialism from a country I've never been to?

 

[loseyourname]

The above list is the byproduct of the type of scheme that is being presented.

Each incarnation has had numerous names over the years but it all boils down to the same thing.

I am really surprised that Bush has been allowed to use it twice during his term. First the rebate to create jobs and now the rebate to create alternate energy. Wow.

Trickle down economic theory states that if you give tax breaks to businesses, they'll have more money to spend on labor, creating jobs. The opposing theory, I suppose, is that we should either tax businesses more and give the money to the poor so that they don't have to get jobs, or have the government directly create jobs. Let's see how you're applying this to energy.

This bill provides tax incentives to companies that meet certain cleanliness standards, conservation standards, tapping of new resource, installation of solar panels on commercial builings, etc. So what is the antithesis to this "trickle-down" theory as you're choosing to call it? We tax energy companies more and use that money to clean up the environment after we've ruined it? We tax them and the government uses that money to buy its own generators? I don't see how the energy situation is all that analagous to employment.

Capitalism is diametrically opposed to working in a democratic system.

What on Earth are you talking about? Is that why capitalism has been so successful in communist and fascist countries and so unsuccessful in democratic countries? Yet another tangential rant that has nothing to do with the energy bill, which I'm sure you haven't even bothered looking at.

 

[loseyourname]

But then, I'm sure your 'room-mate's dad's start-ups of restaurants and bars' is much richer than my experience specifying parts of the Swiss banking system in Frankfurt, Germany, too.

So you have a bigger dick than me. Does that have anything to do with who is being more evenhanded in their evaluation of this bill?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Or funding the building of hydrogen fueled public transit fleets and fueling stations.

They have to develop the fuel first and they have no incentive to do so.

It's provided power to a large part of southern California for decades. Maybe if that company you worked for in Ohio had switched, we wouldn't have to worry about all the acid rain in Canada destroying lakes and rivers.

Hey, you don't get it ... They don't give a rat's keester either way. All they know is they get a tax break for owning them. That is IN FACT what I have been telling you. The rebate system is flawed when there is no check for compliance or targetting of goals.

Well, I just finished looking over the bill (it's extremely long and I couldn't read all of it) and I can see that there aren't any rebates whatsoever earmarked to any specific companies. Looks like this fuss over 'big energy' was nothing more than a fuss. The rebates are for any company or provider that meets certain standards. Very few have anything to do with oil. Most of the fossil fuel incentives have to do with running 'clean-burning' coal plants and tapping into natural gas resources.

Don't worry. Big energy has had teams of lawyers and accountants running over it for you and will cut to the heart of the matter.

And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes, which are focusing on hydroelectric and nuclear power, along with a huge number of conservation incentives, in this bill.

You might want to try reading the bill before you bash it next time.

LOL, I just told you how the largest supplier in the NE USA tapped the 'conservation incentives' in the last bill. They didn't have to even break stride to collect on this one too.

Alabama is on the gulf coast, genius.

Sorry, I meant Arkansas ... Oooo and it also appears that becasue Oklahoma has the Canadian River, they get some cash too! Goo ooo oooly Sargeant! We kin eat in Mayberry Tonight!

How do you expect me to be familiar with a colloquialism from a country I've never been to?

Oh, no reason ... just thought you might have seen a movie or two.

 

[danAlwyn]

And just to make Patty happy, there actually are rebates in there for installing photovoltaic systems in buildings. They just aren't considered viable for public utilities purposes...

Out of curiosity, why? If we could drop the real cost of solar cells by a factor of two with research investment, it might be possible to deal with the energy crisis once and for all. If I did my calculations correctly, a moderate clime gets on the order of 4 kWHrs/day/square meter. That's about 20 square meters per household for a state like California, which isn't so bad. If we can double the efficiency (which is possible) solar farms in Arizona could power Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego and probably Texas as well-which would be a pretty big load off conventional power sources. You would need some advances in power storage for nighttime operations, but it's certainly moving closer and closer to viable.

 

[loseyourname]

They have to develop the fuel first and they have no incentive to do so.

Do you mean they have to develop better cells that are commerically viable? You certainly can't mean that they have to develop hydrogen. It's the most abundant element in the universe and easy enough to extract from water.

Hey, you don't get it ... They don't give a rat's keester either way. All they know is they get a tax break for owning them. That is IN FACT what I have been telling you. The rebate system is flawed when there is no check for compliance or targetting of goals.

Don't worry. Big energy has had teams of lawyers and accountants running over it for you and will cut to the heart of the matter.

LOL, I just told you how the largest supplier in the NE USA tapped the 'conservation incentives' in the last bill. They didn't have to even break stride to collect on this one too.

So are you going to bother looking at the bill at all, or do you just think any rebate scheme can't work? Despite almost all of the objections you make to the actual bill being factually incorrect and based on your not having read the bill, you're just going to continue along these lines.

By the way, your point about the Ohio provider had nothing to do with the conservation incentives in this bill. Those incentives aren't even for providers. Again, read the damn bill before criticizing it.

just thought you might have seen a movie or two.

I've seen quite a bit more than two. None where any characters ever used the phrase 'taking the piss' to mean anything other than taking a piss.

Didn't you say you were going to sleep?

 

[The Smoking Man]

So you have a bigger dick than me. Does that have anything to do with who is being more evenhanded in their evaluation of this bill?

No son, I just have 25 years more experience as an analyst than you and have not to mention living through the eras that you only talk about.

I have also lived and worked in 6 different countries including the USA.

Heck, by the time I had hit your age, I had sat through the whole Watergate inquest, watched vietnam rage on my TV set and saw it end.

You had better stop this naive approach of analysis of 'Bills' that come down from on high. Look for loopholes and how it will be abused from the onset.

To approach ANYTHING that comes out of the government without acknowledging the whole 'lobby system' and what they influence and hide in each bill is like sticking a sign on you that says 'Rape Me'.

Don't be even handed. You can bet they aren't.

 

[loseyourname]

Out of curiosity, why? If we could drop the real cost of solar cells by a factor of two with research investment, it might be possible to deal with the energy crisis once and for all. If I did my calculations correctly, a moderate clime gets on the order of 4 kWHrs/day/square meter. That's about 20 square meters per household for a state like California, which isn't so bad. If we can double the efficiency (which is possible) solar farms in Arizona could power Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego and probably Texas as well-which would be a pretty big load off conventional power sources. You would need some advances in power storage for nighttime operations, but it's certainly moving closer and closer to viable.

Well first, probably because it would require a huge change in infrastructure. Commercial solar power right now, what little of it there is, doesn't even use photovoltaic cells. If you wanted to actually do that, you'd have to build huge arrays to power an entire grid. No public utility has the resources to do that, but individual businesses can certainly do it to their buildings. The bill does encourage research - in the form of new university grants - into making solar power more viable, which frankly is about the best we can do with it right now.

 

[loseyourname]

No son, I just have 25 years more experience as an analyst than you and have not to mention living through the eras that you only talk about.

I have also lived and worked in 6 different countries including the USA.

You're also quite the expert on ad hominem arguments, aren't you? I'm younger than you and haven't lived in as many places, therefore I must be wrong and you must be right. Was that still considered to be a valid argument form when you were in school? Meanwhile, you don't even look at the bill being discussed, but you're the expert on it because you once worked for a utility company.

What exactly do you expect from the government? I have to wonder. Is there such a thing as a bill with no loopholes? Seriously, man, read the damn bill and tell me what you would change about it. I'm sure it has plenty of real shortcomings, plenty that even a young sapling like I could find. Have you considered the alternative plans that were proposed and whether or not they were any better? Or are you simply going to complain no matter what is done? Until you at least look at the actual plan, you're making yourself look like a fool, with the appeal to age/wisdom/experience card. Come on.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Do you mean they have to develop better cells that are commerically viable? You certainly can't mean that they have to develop hydrogen. It's the most abundant element in the universe and easy enough to extract from water.

Going to go all literal on me now are you? Yeah, cells of many types. One is the type you envision and another is based on a sealed battery design.

Hydrogen IS plentiful, yes. Unfortunately, it takes electricity to extract from water ... electrolysis. Power to get power. The process needs work.

So are you going to bother looking at the bill at all, or do you just think any rebate scheme can't work? Despite almost all of the objections you make to the actual bill being factually incorrect and based on your not having read the bill, you're just going to continue along these lines.

Let me ask YOU since you have read it ... What is the demonstration to the government that you qualify for the rebate? What are the Checks and Balances? Basically, what happens in these schemes is that they leave it up to the TAX OFFICE to enforce the chriteria. THAT is the flaw with all of these schemes. You have a tax accountant looking over a balance sheet.

By the way, your point about the Ohio provider had nothing to do with the conservation incentives in this bill. Those incentives aren't even for providers. Again, read the damn bill before criticizing it.

LOL ... Rebates don't work. Grants that are justified with targets etc. DO. It is a simple fact.

I've seen quite a bit more than two. None where any characters ever used the phrase 'taking the piss' to mean anything other than taking a piss.

Allow me to educate you then: http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=slv5-&p=taking the piss&ei=UTF-8

Didn't you say you were going to sleep?

I did ... I only sleep 4 hours a night.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Great. And 19% goes to the oil companies who's last major development was unleaded.

Fossil fuels, unfortunately, are of vital importance to the way this country's economy runs. It would make no sense for this country to deny their importance and not be sure to keep the industry, that helps support so many others, prospering. It would make even less sense to smack them around like a redheaded step child because we're pissed that they are that important to us.
Aside from that...
http://www.chevron.com/technology/new_energy_technologies/renewable_energy.asp
http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=1701

I think I have asked this before ... obliquely, I'll admit ... When the heck did Nuclear EVER become viable?

Integral Fast Reactors...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/
The website for Argonne National Laboratory mentioned in previous link...
http://www.anl.gov/
France and Nuclear Power...
http://greennature.com/article744.html
China and Nuclear Power...
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/179030/china_races_to_expand_nuclear_power/
Japan and Nuclear Power...
http://www.japannuclear.com/

 

[The Smoking Man]

You're also quite the expert on ad hominem arguments, aren't you? I'm younger than you and haven't lived in as many places, therefore I must be wrong and you must be right. Was that still considered to be a valid argument form when you were in school? Meanwhile, you don't even look at the bill being discussed, but you're the expert on it because you once worked for a utility company.

Actually, yes it was a valid argument and now it wasn't considered ad hominem.

There is something to be said for respecting your elders simply becasue of what they have experienced and the conclusions they have drawn from that experience.

You tell me to read this legislation for instance becasue in your reading, you didn't find anything wrong with it.

Well, in my 'experience', I have seen a great many pieces of similar legislation and it is not the content of the bill that is in question but the TYPE of legislation.

I have specified systems for banks in three countries, insurance companies in two countries and a power company in one and they were all 'tax based' legislation with the onus on the tax office to verify and administer decisions that were not in their perview.

What exactly do you expect from the government? I have to wonder. Is there such a thing as a bill with no loopholes? Seriously, man, read the damn bill and tell me what you would change about it. I'm sure it has plenty of real shortcomings, plenty that even a young sapling like I could find. Have you considered the alternative plans that were proposed and whether or not they were any better? Or are you simply going to complain no matter what is done? Until you at least look at the actual plan, you're making yourself look like a fool, with the appeal to age/wisdom/experience card. Come on.

I can answer it simply ... 'Who in the tax office is trained as a tax accountant and an expert in alternate fuel source development?' Did that require me to read a bill?

Nope.

How did I do that?

Experience through 4 administrations of US policy does that since inevitably 'all systems now lead to the USA'. (Instead of all roads lead to Rome.)

Without exception, trickled down especially when led by a specific target this is doomed to failure.

It's the football in the nuts scenario ... been there done that already.

 

[Skyhunter]

That a Senator would send money toward his home state is unsurprising and certainly not unique to Republicans, so you cannot use that as a stick with which to beat Republicans. But step back and have a look at what you are opposing: R&D. Personally, I think the US government has a vested interest in funding energy R&D.

Russ it is time to earn your super mentor status and make sure you have some knowledge on a subject before you start voicing an opinion.

Tom DeLay is a congressional representative from Texas, not a Senator. If you don't even know that most basic of information about him then you should not offer an opinion about his ethics.

 

[Skyhunter]

I apologize for not reading all the posts but I need to sleep and wanted to add a thought and ask a question before bedtime.

The current US government is willing to spend hundreds of billions a year on a war with no well defined goals.

What would happen to the price of PV panels if the government invested 100 billion a year to subsidize the production of photo-voltaics?

Reading how the actual tax incentives work is frightening, the tax incentive for hybrids laughable. It only covers the first 60,000 vehicles. Toyota will sell that many in 4 months.And the incentive for the purchaser is about $2000. I can still buy a loaded H2 and get a $60,000 write-off the first year.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Fossil fuels, unfortunately, are of vital importance to the way this country's economy runs. It would make no sense for this country to deny their importance and not be sure to keep the industry, that helps support so many others, prospering. It would make even less sense to smack them around like a redheaded step child because we're pissed that they are that important to us.
Aside from that...
http://www.chevron.com/technology/new_energy_technologies/renewable_energy.asp
http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=1701


Integral Fast Reactors...
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/
The website for Argonne National Laboratory mentioned in previous link...
http://www.anl.gov/
France and Nuclear Power...
http://greennature.com/article744.html
China and Nuclear Power...
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/179030/china_races_to_expand_nuclear_power/
Japan and Nuclear Power...
http://www.japannuclear.com/

I know what you're saying but I always have the nasty thought in my mind of San Andreas and Japan. Or even a conventional war.

Bomb my wind farm, shake my dam, break my solar panels but nuclear sites? ... It's really hard to justify a nuclear halflife based on results in ideal conditions. Even the Exxon Valdize doesn't have half the problems that a large nuclear accident could bring.

And I'm sorry but, I was in the UK when they started finding radioactive particles on the beach just down fron a British Nuke site. People were sunbathing on that beach and anyone laying on it would have been irradiated.

You just don't hear stories like this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1512884,00.html with regard to wind farms and the like. So far, the best they have come up with is they are ugly.

A couple of the sites you sent me to were cool. The U of Chicago biomass for example. I'm all for that.

I know I don't live in an ideal world AND I am a pessimist. I am very hard to convince on this issue.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I apologize for not reading all the posts but I need to sleep and wanted to add a thought and ask a question before bedtime.

The current US government is willing to spend hundreds of billions a year on a war with no well defined goals.

I know I am way off topic with this comment and I apologize in advance but:

Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?
A: $900+ billion

Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.?
A: 50%

Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world,according to the UN?
A: 10% (that's about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund the US retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

 

[hitssquad]

People were sunbathing on that beach and anyone laying on it would have been irradiated.

Could one sunbathe without being irradiated?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Could one sunbathe without being irradiated?

In the North of England ... YES.

Do yourselves a favour and never tell these people about global warming. They'll be on the streets in droves burning old refrigerators and squirting aerosols into the air.

They had a clear day once near where I was born and they were threatening to sacrifice a virgin so the 'big yellow thing' would leave the sky. Thank heavens they couldn't find one.

 

[loseyourname]

Rebates don't work. Grants that are justified with targets etc. DO. It is a simple fact.

Grants are a large part of the bill. Again, something you would know if you would read it already.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, yes it was a valid argument and now it wasn't considered ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem means argumentation against the person. It's a way of deflecting from the actual arguments being made by your opponent. It is and has always been considered an informal logical fallacy. If you think this:

I am older and more experienced than you.
Therefore, you are wrong.

Is a valid argument, show me the truth table for it. It isn't.

There is something to be said for respecting your elders simply becasue of what they have experienced and the conclusions they have drawn from that experience.

You have the same amount of experience with this particular bill as I do - none. Heck, I might have more experience than you since I bothered to take a look at the thing before deciding it was all bunk. I decided to make up my own mind instead of accepting the headline accounts of what it contained.

You tell me to read this legislation for instance becasue in your reading, you didn't find anything wrong with it.

Not at all. I find plenty wrong with it. But they had to pass a policy of some sort and this is as good as anything else that was proposed. I'm asking you to read it because I feel that knowledge of a given bill is a prerequisite for intelligent discussion of the bill.

Well, in my 'experience', I have seen a great many pieces of similar legislation and it is not the content of the bill that is in question but the TYPE of legislation.

What "type?" All you've complained about are the rebates, which make up something like 11 out of 40 titles in the bill. There is a lot more to it than that, including many of the things you are saying should be included.

Without exception, trickled down especially when led by a specific target this is doomed to failure.

If you insist, but guess what? There are men as expert as you, more expert than you, that think otherwise. The appeal to authority doesn't work when the authorities can't come to agreement. That's why I'd like to at least see a specific objection to this legislation. Besides, you're wrong on at least one count. Tax rebates for energy conservation here in California have been very effective, and I'm glad this bill expands them. Or perhaps you thought the conservation rebates were primarily for energy providers, not individuals and businesses that actually use the energy. Maybe if you read the bill you wouldn't think that.

 

[loseyourname]

Toyota will sell that many in 4 months.And the incentive for the purchaser is about $2000. I can still buy a loaded H2 and get a $60,000 write-off the first year.

As far as I know, you don't get a tax break just for buying an H-2. You get one if you use it for business purposes, but that is the case for any car. A brother and sister pair I know have most of their leases on a Corvette and a Viper deductible because they advertise the name of commercial websites they own on the rear windshield.

 

[hitssquad]

As far as I know, you don't get a tax break just for buying an H-2.

Yes, you do. There is a special tax break just for trucks.
http://www.unlockingwealth.com/free_suv.htm

--
The break for trucks got bigger this year under a schedule Congress adopted in 1996 when businesses could claim $17,500 in accelerated depreciation on equipment. That lump sum increased to $20,000 last year. It went up to $24,000 this year. Next year and thereafter the deduction will be $25,000.
[...]
The code is not as generous for luxury cars.
--

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, you do. There is a special tax break just for trucks.
http://www.unlockingwealth.com/free_suv.htm

No you don't. That site even says you have to be self-employed and use the SUV for business purposes. The average citizen can't just buy an SUV and get a tax break.

You can get a larger deduction on luxury vehicles by counting it as a travel expense and as an advertising expense.

Don't get me wrong here. I think both loopholes should be closed, personally, but these are hardly the extent of how to get around paying taxes and get free things. There are plenty of creative accounting techniques one can use.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No you don't. That site even says you have to be self-employed and use the SUV for business purposes. The average citizen can't just buy an SUV and get a tax break.

You can get a larger deduction on luxury vehicles by counting it as a travel expense and as an advertising expense.

Don't get me wrong here. I think both loopholes should be closed, personally, but these are hardly the extent of how to get around paying taxes and get free things. There are plenty of creative accounting techniques one can use.

Question: Do you know it is possible for a private citizen to register himself as a business and then purchase assets in the name of that business?

You can then draw your salary tax free to that company and pay yourself substantially less while maintaining all your assets in your company name. You would then only be liable for personal income tax on the amount you pay yourself which is essentially enough to buy things that are not tax deductable.

The rest of your money then becomes subject to corporate taxes AND corporate deductions including the purchase of SUVs, H2s and the like.

"There is more in this heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

 

[kat]

Question: Do you know it is possible for a private citizen to register himself as a business and then purchase assets in the name of that business?

You can then draw your salary tax free to that company and pay yourself substantially less while maintaining all your assets in your company name. You would then only be liable for personal income tax on the amount you pay yourself which is essentially enough to buy things that are not tax deductable.

The rest of your money then becomes subject to corporate taxes AND corporate deductions including the purchase of SUVs, H2s and the like.
"There is more in this heaven and Earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Well...It's a bit more complicated then that...and bit more costly then your portraying.

 

[hitssquad]

Question: Do you know it is possible for a private citizen to register himself as a business and then purchase assets in the name of that business?

Citizens in the market for machine guns and super-shorty shotguns know this.
http://www.serbu.com/nfainfo.htm

--
4) Form a corporation. This is a loophole which gets you around the sign off. Do this ONLY if you can't get a sign off. The down side is that there are many hassles associated with forming and maintaining a corporation. Another down side is that the corporation owns the guns, you don't.
--

 

[The Smoking Man]

Argumentum ad hominem means argumentation against the person. It's a way of deflecting from the actual arguments being made by your opponent. It is and has always been considered an informal logical fallacy. If you think this:

I am older and more experienced than you.
Therefore, you are wrong.

Nope. You wrote that.

I stated that I am older than you and I have therefore had experience with this type of legislation before from a professional standpoint and in my personal life.

Tell me ... if some kid is working in a garage and is half way through hooking up a scope to an engine and a guy who has 25 years in the business walks in and hears a tic and says, "It's missing on the third piston", is this an ad hominem attack too?

You have the same amount of experience with this particular bill as I do - none. Heck, I might have more experience than you since I bothered to take a look at the thing before deciding it was all bunk. I decided to make up my own mind instead of accepting the headline accounts of what it contained.

Look, kid, I keep telling you that the thing is a dog because of the premise being based in TAX REBATES.

Again, you're in loseyourname lalaland. How many people in the SENATE read the bill before the vote?

Here's a hint. Go and look at the Patriot Act and see if you can read the thing in the two days they took before IT was passed.(No that wasn't an attempt at digression. That was an attempt at pointing out to you that most legislation is not even read by the people who vote on the things. I suggest you watch F9/11 where Moore asks that same question and is invited to 'sit down while the facts of life are read to him'.)

Not at all. I find plenty wrong with it. But they had to pass a policy of some sort and this is as good as anything else that was proposed. I'm asking you to read it because I feel that knowledge of a given bill is a prerequisite for intelligent discussion of the bill.

Do you actually know how long this bill as been around? Do you think I don't actually know what is in it? This is the same pig that Bush has been trying to push through since day one of his presidency where he wanted to open up nature preserves in Alaska to drilling.

What "type?" All you've complained about are the rebates, which make up something like 11 out of 40 titles in the bill. There is a lot more to it than that, including many of the things you are saying should be included.

Well, hey ... it must be good. The People's Daily thinks it is. http://english.people.com.cn/200507/30/eng20050730_199280.html

If you insist, but guess what? There are men as expert as you, more expert than you, that think otherwise. The appeal to authority doesn't work when the authorities can't come to agreement. That's why I'd like to at least see a specific objection to this legislation. Besides, you're wrong on at least one count. Tax rebates for energy conservation here in California have been very effective, and I'm glad this bill expands them.

Wow, now you are quoting the record of the state that just a couple of years ago was in default on their energy bill which allowed the 'Governator' to assume office.

Or perhaps you thought the conservation rebates were primarily for energy providers, not individuals and businesses that actually use the energy. Maybe if you read the bill you wouldn't think that.

Okay, I'll give you your merrit badge in 'Bill Reading'. Then, we'll forbid anyone who has not read the 1,200 page tome from even commenting on it because they just can't hold a candle to you!

Is that what you want?

Most people in the USA will never read your 1,200 page 'act' and you know what? ... they will all manage to debate the issue quite comfortably.

Heck, if you go over onto 'fox news' and do a search on 'Energy Bill' they even have some accountants sponsoring links to get you the best deal on the dollar ladder. No, that wasn't how to set up a business doing research or drilling a well, or getting a quicker permit or any of the things the bill purports to do. It is a direct link to 'accounting your way to wealth'.

 

[SOS2008]

More on the Good, The Bad, and The Ugly Energy Bill

Aside from my state representatives (McCain, Kyle, Flake, etc.) opposing the energy bill...

I just received my electric bill. They are promoting their program "Earthwise Energy" in which I may make a contribution ranging in $3 to $12 additional to my monthly bill in support of renewable energy sources. Apparently the subsidies in the new energy bill are not enough, so customers are now being encouraged to 'donate' to this big utility as well.

I can't imagine why people feel our country is heading in the wrong direction...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I know what you're saying but I always have the nasty thought in my mind of San Andreas and Japan. Or even a conventional war.

Bomb my wind farm, shake my dam, break my solar panels but nuclear sites? ... It's really hard to justify a nuclear halflife based on results in ideal conditions. Even the Exxon Valdize doesn't have half the problems that a large nuclear accident could bring.

And I'm sorry but, I was in the UK when they started finding radioactive particles on the beach just down fron a British Nuke site. People were sunbathing on that beach and anyone laying on it would have been irradiated.

You just don't hear stories like this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1512884,00.html with regard to wind farms and the like. So far, the best they have come up with is they are ugly.

A couple of the sites you sent me to were cool. The U of Chicago biomass for example. I'm all for that.

I know I don't live in an ideal world AND I am a pessimist. I am very hard to convince on this issue.

I'm not sure what's up with the Brits and their nuclear power plants. They apearantly also tried out a breeder reactor design utilizing liquid sodium cooling, similar to the IFR design, and had several accidents involving coolant leaks which led to fires and serious injury, death too if I remember correctly. And now they have workers collecting radioactive samples with a wellington boot on a string...

True, wind has relatively little negative impact. There is one other factor aside from ugliness though. There have been reports from environmentalists regarding impact on avian population due to the birds flying into the mill blades. There is also the matter of the amount of space being taken up by the mills as opposed to a power plant. I've read that some of these projects have turned out to not be as cost effective as they were sold as being among other problems, unfortunately the only people I have found really giving these stories much attention are conservative wackos who think that Kyoto is a conspiracy against the US.
The problems with wind that don't really need varification though are: The mills need to be in areas where they will be effective, there aren't many areas with a max effectiveness across the US though those that do exist supposedly can create enough energy for the entire country. Irregularity of the energy source, the slack and down time will need to be made up for by another power source. Line losses, considering that there are only certain locations where it would be economical to use wind farms the energy will need to be transported over long distances to get to many cities which will incur line losses. This would also require quite a bit of infrastructure.
I'm not against it. I think it's a good idea for areas that can utilize it best, but it's not the answer that it's promoted as.

Argonne's projects definitely look good, I need to read more of the material on their site.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think it's a good idea for areas that can utilize it best, but it's not the answer that it's promoted as.

Argonne's projects definitely look good, I need to read more of the material on their site.

I am with you there, I don't think there will ever be 'one' answer to this problem and we are going to be looking at hybrid solutions that take advantage of geological and environmental strengths the world over.

There will be 'simple solutions' that may not be the best.

I doubt we'll see the best answers used as the solutions we need as long as there are 'vested interests'.

All we can do individually is our best.

God, I sound lame.

 

[kat]

Aside from my state representatives (McCain, Kyle, Flake, etc.) opposing the energy bill...

I just received my electric bill. They are promoting their program "Earthwise Energy" in which I may make a contribution ranging in $3 to $12 additional to my monthly bill in support of renewable energy sources. Apparently the subsidies in the new energy bill are not enough, so customers are now being encouraged to 'donate' to this big utility as well.

I can't imagine why people feel our country is heading in the wrong direction...

and the promotion I received with my bill tells us that August 22nd or something is "Safe neighborhood day" and to show our support we should all waste electricity by leaving our front porch light on...

 

[Skyhunter]

As far as I know, you don't get a tax break just for buying an H-2. You get one if you use it for business purposes, but that is the case for any car. A brother and sister pair I know have most of their leases on a Corvette and a Viper deductible because they advertise the name of commercial websites they own on the rear windshield.

You are correct. The deduction is for businesses and the vehicle must be used for business at least 50% of the time. This is a very popular loophole for doctors, lawyers, and realtors

Here is a good link for hybrid -vs- hummer

http://www.ucsusa.org/hybridcenter/page.cfm?pageID=1702\

Check out Orrin Hatch's Clear act. Unfortunately it wasn't included in the energy bill, but it still has a chance if he can muster enough support.

http://www.ucsusa.org/hybridcenter/act/hybridtaxcreditsaction.html

 

[SOS2008]

and the promotion I received with my bill tells us that August 22nd or something is "Safe neighborhood day" and to show our support we should all waste electricity by leaving our front porch light on...

That's hilarious!

 

[Astronuc]

"Energy Policy Act of 2005" - http://www.ne.doe.gov/EPAct2005/hr6_textconfrept.pdf

1724 pages

 

[loseyourname]

"Energy Policy Act of 2005" - http://www.ne.doe.gov/EPAct2005/hr6_textconfrept.pdf

1724 pages

I read the outline when we were first going through this thread. No way I'm tackling that whole thing. I don't envy the senatorial aides that will have to, either.