Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3336)	12/3/2008 8:57:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86354

We provide $13B of direct tax subsidies for oil every year. Even taking your statement as true, it would amount to alternatives being much more heavily subsidized than oil and refined oil products. $13bil is a very small part of that market. Its small enough to arguably be considered insignificant, while the subsidies for many alternatives are very significant. And it isn't true. The only thing that could be called a tax subsidy is the more favorable depreciation. Even with slower depreciation the assets would still be written down, just over a longer time. Yes writing them down faster means the reported profit is reduced now rather than later, but the value of that is a relatively small part of the total expenses. And its not like there is one perfect time frame, any time frame you pick is going to be rather arbitrary. As far as methanol subsidies, that is nothing more than a farm subsidy. I think you mean ethanol. Yes it is put in place mainly for farmers, but since it does cut down the cost of an alternative fuel it is an alternate fuel/energy subsidy.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (3336)	12/4/2008 7:05:17 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Respond to of 86354

In addition, we spend tens of billions more per year in securing our oil supplies and fighting wars to secure future oil supplies. ... Alternatives get far far less than that. Actually we import windmill parts and technology from Europe, lithium from So America, and various other commodities used in batteries and solar cells from various countries (Chile, Japan, So Korea, etc). So by your own argument, we ought to consider our military commitments to NATO, south America, and east Asia to be subsidies for alternative energy. As far as methanol subsidies, that is nothing more than a farm subsidy. No one in their right mind would call that a viable alternative energy source. Actually ethanol was sold (and still is being sold) to the public as an alternative energy source. For example, below are a couple of articles where Obama does exactly that: Obama urged increasing ethanol production and reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil. obama.senate.gov In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” nytimes.com Perhaps you think Obama isn't in his right mind? ;>)