Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"
Speed limit IQ...
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.
Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
The hydrogen car is the only alternative fuel vehicle that makes sense, but there is zero fucking chance it ever happens.
Hydrogen is the most abundant thing on the planet, so it would be impossible to turn a profit on it. The exhaust a hydrogen car produces is clean, drinkable water. You lose all of the climate change bullshit that generates a mountain of money under this scenario also.
People are trying to go into the future making sure the same people stay rich. It's just fucking stupid.
Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"
Speed limit IQ...
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.
You are talking about two completely different applications of govt resources. The "federal funding" into shale gas was either the DOE directly doing exploratory research with no commercialization 1970s and 80s or the DOE working with Mitchell on a couple wells to prove a concept.
The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.
The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources.
Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"
Speed limit IQ...
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.
Speed limit IQ...
Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.
Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"
Speed limit IQ...
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.
Speed limit IQ...
Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.
You mean like the foreign tax credits, or the domestic manufacturing deductions? Or do you mean with some midstream setting up as MLPs just the same way some real estate groups set up as REITs and such?
Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"
Speed limit IQ...
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.
Speed limit IQ...
Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.
You mean like the foreign tax credits, or the domestic manufacturing deductions? Or do you mean with some midstream setting up as MLPs just the same way some real estate groups set up as REITs and such?
You really aren't good at this...
Yes I'm not good at reading a Forbes article and taking it out of context like you did.
Look up oil and gas exploration and the section 199 deduction.
Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"
Speed limit IQ...
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.
You are talking about two completely different applications of govt resources. The "federal funding" into shale gas was either the DOE directly doing exploratory research with no commercialization 1970s and 80s or the DOE working with Mitchell on a couple wells to prove a concept.
The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.
The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources.
So was federal investment into helping to commercialize fracking a good or bad decision?
You're analogy is a massive exaggeration. The government invested a significant amount of money into fracking from 1970s-1990s to support energy independence. It was unclear if it was going to profitable in 70s at the time of the initial investment. Fracking is why OPEC can't fuck us so I'm glad the government pitched in.
Federal investments into solar has been a mixed bag. The gov still does tons of public private partnerships in the solar industry similar to what was done in mid 70-80s for shale. The gov wanted to help bring down production cost and increase PV efficiency - both have happened in the last decade. Utility scale solar will grow with or without subsidies at this point - its just getting too cheap. Distributed generation and battery storage will happen and would rather have gov help fast track it.
Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
The hydrogen car is the only alternative fuel vehicle that makes sense, but there is zero fucking chance it ever happens.
Hydrogen is the most abundant thing on the planet, so it would be impossible to turn a profit on it. The exhaust a hydrogen car produces is clean, drinkable water. You lose all of the climate change bullshit that generates a mountain of money under this scenario also.
People are trying to go into the future making sure the same people stay rich. It's just fucking stupid.
Sounds great, but H2 doesn't readily exist and is pretty freaking unstable.
A while back they did have a proposal for a "sodium"-powered car (expose Na with water to make H2 to power the car plus NaOH)...was kinda interesting. Some nasty chemicals however, and you still need a ton of electricity to convert the NaOH back to sodium however...
In South America they have been retrofitting cars to be powered by natural gas...probably the best alternative to liquid fuels, but it doesn't get you around the carbon dependence.
Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"
Speed limit IQ...
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.
You are talking about two completely different applications of govt resources. The "federal funding" into shale gas was either the DOE directly doing exploratory research with no commercialization 1970s and 80s or the DOE working with Mitchell on a couple wells to prove a concept.
The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.
The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources.
So was federal investment into helping to commercialize fracking a good or bad decision?
You're analogy is a massive exaggeration. The government invested a significant amount of money into fracking from 1970s-1990s to support energy independence. It was unclear if it was going to profitable in 70s at the time of the initial investment. Fracking is why OPEC can't fuck us so I'm glad the government pitched in.
Federal investments into solar has been a mixed bag. The gov still does tons of public private partnerships in the solar industry similar to what was done in mid 70-80s for shale. The gov wanted to help bring down production cost and increase PV efficiency - both have happened in the last decade. Utility scale solar will grow with or without subsidies at this point - its just getting too cheap. Distributed generation and battery storage will happen and would rather have gov help fast track it.
Indifferent. The Govt invested massively in the 1970s into everything energy...relatively speaking very little went to fracking (there are a lot of wrong numbers out there for those thinking it all went to fracking...most of the $$$ which "went" to fracking involved blowing up 3 different nukes in Colorado and New Mexico, and if you think that was really done for fracking purposes or helped in any way, shape, or form current technology more power to you...).
And that is a completely different argument then what has been going on. Govt does fund some research in solar/etc...its a legit debate to say if they should and how much. But it should be done directly through the DOE/universities, etc., or even private start-ups that are in the exploration phase of a technology.
Instead of funding the early research, Obama (really whatever idiot he had telling him) picked technologies/companies that on their own are not competitive and any competent scientist could have told you so. And instead of funding them to research better technologies, he funded them to ramp up and spend billions of dollars to commercialize those non-competitive technologies.
And the results has been a complete waste of money, very little actual commercial technology, and what little that was developed is all now built in China. Brilliant.
Bringing this back to Tesla...there is a great business model buried under the mess. A high-end car that shouldn't be constrained by the economics of batteries/electricity, limited manufacturing required, etc. Its a perfect set-up to be profitable and use as a base to improve battery technology. Unfortunately, its also a limited market that won't grow rapidly and therefore won't drive valuations/stock higher, etc. Hence the push to ramp up Model 3, which will likely turn into a mess.
Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"
Speed limit IQ...
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.
Speed limit IQ...
Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.
You mean like the foreign tax credits, or the domestic manufacturing deductions? Or do you mean with some midstream setting up as MLPs just the same way some real estate groups set up as REITs and such?
You really aren't good at this...
Yes I'm not good at reading a Forbes article and taking it out of context like you did.
Look up oil and gas exploration and the section 199 deduction.
The Tax Break-Down: Section 199, the Domestic Production Activities Deduction
The eligible activities center around manufacturing, but many other businesses qualify. In addition to manufacturing, qualified activities include producing electricity and films, selling items manufactured in the United States, engineering, and software development. The deduction is adequately broad that assembling gift baskets, making hamburgers, or roasting coffee qualifies for the deduction. Roughly one-third of corporate activities qualify for the deduction. As former U.S. tax official John Harrington explained, "If you are in the Dow Jones industrial (average), and you are not taking this deduction, there must be something wrong. It has always applied to a motley crew of activities."
Yeah...a deduction for only the oil and gas industry. God you are an effin moron...
Comments
Speed limit IQ...
Hydrogen is the most abundant thing on the planet, so it would be impossible to turn a profit on it. The exhaust a hydrogen car produces is clean, drinkable water. You lose all of the climate change bullshit that generates a mountain of money under this scenario also.
People are trying to go into the future making sure the same people stay rich. It's just fucking stupid.
The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.
The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources.
You really aren't good at this...
Look up oil and gas exploration and the section 199 deduction.
You're analogy is a massive exaggeration. The government invested a significant amount of money into fracking from 1970s-1990s to support energy independence. It was unclear if it was going to profitable in 70s at the time of the initial investment. Fracking is why OPEC can't fuck us so I'm glad the government pitched in.
Federal investments into solar has been a mixed bag. The gov still does tons of public private partnerships in the solar industry similar to what was done in mid 70-80s for shale. The gov wanted to help bring down production cost and increase PV efficiency - both have happened in the last decade. Utility scale solar will grow with or without subsidies at this point - its just getting too cheap. Distributed generation and battery storage will happen and would rather have gov help fast track it.
A while back they did have a proposal for a "sodium"-powered car (expose Na with water to make H2 to power the car plus NaOH)...was kinda interesting. Some nasty chemicals however, and you still need a ton of electricity to convert the NaOH back to sodium however...
In South America they have been retrofitting cars to be powered by natural gas...probably the best alternative to liquid fuels, but it doesn't get you around the carbon dependence.
And that is a completely different argument then what has been going on. Govt does fund some research in solar/etc...its a legit debate to say if they should and how much. But it should be done directly through the DOE/universities, etc., or even private start-ups that are in the exploration phase of a technology.
Instead of funding the early research, Obama (really whatever idiot he had telling him) picked technologies/companies that on their own are not competitive and any competent scientist could have told you so. And instead of funding them to research better technologies, he funded them to ramp up and spend billions of dollars to commercialize those non-competitive technologies.
And the results has been a complete waste of money, very little actual commercial technology, and what little that was developed is all now built in China. Brilliant.
Bringing this back to Tesla...there is a great business model buried under the mess. A high-end car that shouldn't be constrained by the economics of batteries/electricity, limited manufacturing required, etc. Its a perfect set-up to be profitable and use as a base to improve battery technology. Unfortunately, its also a limited market that won't grow rapidly and therefore won't drive valuations/stock higher, etc. Hence the push to ramp up Model 3, which will likely turn into a mess.
The Tax Break-Down: Section 199, the Domestic Production Activities Deduction
The eligible activities center around manufacturing, but many other businesses qualify. In addition to manufacturing, qualified activities include producing electricity and films, selling items manufactured in the United States, engineering, and software development. The deduction is adequately broad that assembling gift baskets, making hamburgers, or roasting coffee qualifies for the deduction. Roughly one-third of corporate activities qualify for the deduction. As former U.S. tax official John Harrington explained, "If you are in the Dow Jones industrial (average), and you are not taking this deduction, there must be something wrong. It has always applied to a motley crew of activities."
Yeah...a deduction for only the oil and gas industry. God you are an effin moron...
Listen to them Glass-Packs Bitches! Welcome to the Cherry Popper!