Slashdot Mirror

This is obviously a swipe at the idea that we should drug test welfare recipients. But tax deductions, in and of themselves, aren't comparable to welfare. For example, it is standard practice in the U.S. to deduct business expenses from taxable income because, traditionally, businesses pay taxes on profit rather than gross revenue. This is clearly not "welfare" -- as in a direct payment or subsidy -- unless you believe that 100% of your income is owed to the government by default. A better statement would have been: "Drug test business owners that are receiving government subsidies."

And make damned sure you understand properly what a subsidy actually is, because people also get that wrong. For example, there was a misleading clamor a few years back to "end oil company subsidies," when the reality is that oil companies don't actually receive subsidies; the whole campaign was really just a glib and not-so-subtle call to raise taxes on oil and gas.

Gasoline is subsidized (in the U.S.) by about 2 to 2.5 cents/gallon. It's estimated the oil industry receives about $4 billion in subsidies, which sounds like a lot until you realize the country uses 137 billion gallons of gasoline a year and about 40 billion gallons of transportation diesel a year. Dividing $4 billion by that gives a subsidy of a whopping 2.2 cents/gallon.

Gasoline is taxed (in the U.S.) by about 30 cents/gallon. It goes up to about 50 cents/gallon if you include other taxes on the oil industry, not just vehicle fuel taxes.

I'm from Valdez, Alaska. I was there for the spill and the next 20 years. Yes, you can find oil on some beaches. No, this does not represent an ongoing ecological issue. As far as the ecosystem goes, there may be some lingering effects detectable by statistical analysis, but the fish stocks have recovered, and as far as the shorebirds and marine mammals are concerned it might as well never happened. The biggest ecological change in the area since the spill is actually the Columbia Glacier, which has retreated some 12 miles in the last two decades or so.

Yes, there is oil on the beaches. There's a certain amount of hydrocarbons all over this planet. Go there, and find me any other evidence that the spill happened.

And on the actual subject of pipeline leakage, yes, it tends to happen. I believe it was more common in feeder lines that led to the main TAPS line, but I do recall one episode where some drunken yokel decided it would look better with a few shotgun holes in it: spend a few winters in Alaska and that sort of thing is almost understandable. As far as I know, it's a job for a few guys in a hazmat suit and a backhoe, and it's an open question whether the oil or the reams of EPA paperwork do more damage.

For the interested, I found an American Petroleum Institute document on oil spillage, which I don't have time to summarize. Guesses: natural seeps dwarf human spills, and rail and truck spill more than pipelines.

The oil industry contributes $1.2 Trillion to the US economy. The subsidies of $52 Million are 4.3% of that. Testa get a lot more subsidies than that. Context is everything.

The Wikipedia article on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill says, "The US Government estimated the total discharge at 4.9 million barrels ...." This article says, "The largest tankers trading today are comparable in size and can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil." So almost 5 million barrels were spilled in 2010, and the largest oil tanker can carry 2 million barrels.

The next time oil comes up uncontrolled from the sea floor, maybe this will work: Take an empty super-tanker, and cut a 100-foot hole in the top of it. Turn it upside-down, and lower it to the ocean floor. Lower it on top of the oil gusher, so that oil from the gusher will go into the tanker, displacing any air or water in the tanker. If the tanker fills with oil, pipe the surplus oil to another sunken tanker.

According to these images, the tops of tankers aren't completely flat. So the hole in the tanker won't be directly on the ocean floor. Since there will be a gap between the tanker and the ocean floor, there will be room under the tanker to move equipment to the gusher, to close it. While the oil company is closing the gusher, the tanker will collect the oil so that the oil doesn't pollute, and so that it isn't lost.

(If gold instead of oil were washed away, people would rightly complain that our national treasure was being wasted. National treasure is also wasted if oil is dispersed and lost.)

If BP likes another idea better, fine. Whatever idea they decide on, they should test and improve it now, so that they're ready for the next oil spill.

well-researched and straightforward methodology for grading oil
What methodology are you using? Normally API is used to "grade" oil but that's for API gravity. You could be measuring viscosity. Or density. Or who knows what else. But that's the point.....:"Grading oil with a homebrew test kit" is not a viable project until it is better defined.

Also the subsidies for an ICE (oil and refinery subsidies) vehicle are built into the subsidized fuel price. So the $7,500 electric vehicle subsidy should be included as part of the price as well for an Apples to Apples vehicle cost comparison.

Exactly.

Most of those so called "subsidies" are provided in the form of facilities. Roads.

Take what ever you prefer to think of as a subsidy, and compare it to the cost of roads. The cost to build roads exceeds all other supposed "subsidies" you can marshal.

So since Electric Cars pay no gas tax, you can make the case that tax break they get is exactly backward, and it should perhaps be a $1430 tax bill instead.

The US fleet average for cars 35.6 MPG. (Note: that seems unrealistically optimistic).
The average US gas tax is 49.72 cents per gallon.

Its easy to get 100,000 miles out of current production cars.
So the average car will consume an optimistic 2,857 gallons of fuel over 100k miles, and pay gas taxes of around $1430 to the road maintenance fund.

A more realistic estimate of MPG is probably closer to 20, which would show the ICE vehicle contributing $2,270 to road maintenance over the same 100k miles.

Since there is no reason to expect an EV to damage the roads LESS than an ICE vehicle, they might not be paying their fair share of road maintenance tax. States are already becoming aware of this because gas tax revenues are falling short simply due to better MPG in recent years, and having a whole new class of electric only vehicles is going to impact that shortfall even more.

I think you can expect to see that $7500 tax break disappear over the next few years.

The US Government, and the States, have huge fuel taxes on diesel because "those big trucks do more damage to the roads".

Bullshit.

From the linked summary report, prepared in January 2013:

The nationwide average tax on gasoline is 48.8 cpg, down .5 cpg from the October 2012 study.

The nationwide average tax on motor diesel fuel is 54.4 cpg, down .1 cpg from the October 2012 study.

5.6 cents per gallon is not "huge fuel taxes on diesel," when compared to regular gasoline - it's a 10-11% difference. Let's not make it sound like diesel fuel has been unfairly singled out for harsh punishment. Worldwide demand for diesel (and other oils) has increased in recent years in China, India, and other rapidly-growing emerging markets against a fairly tight refining capacity, and the US' transition to low-sulfur diesel variants has also been costly, which pushes up prices at the pump.

That price differential has a lot less to do with taxes than you seem to think.

Funny that you should characterize climate change as a plot against the oil companies. If you check the position papers of the petroleum industry associations you will find that not only do they understand climate change, they also admit their carbon from their products are part of the cause.
http://www.api.org/environment-health-and-safety/climate-change.aspx

In addition to the petroleum industry itself, the worlds largest insurance companies, who's entire business is based on determine fact and risk, have long acknowledged climate change and its mankind's role in accelerating it.
http://www.munichre.com/corporate-responsibility/en/management/environment/climate-protection/default.aspx

So if the petroleum industry and insurance (banking) industries are part of the same conspiracy with scientists...perhaps it is not a conspiracy?

Perhaps the only conspiracy are pundits making a money by exploiting a niche? You can launch a site expressing some counter factual, our counter cultural position and you will be guaranteed a small but loyal audience by people who get a sense of self-worth by being "outside" or "bucking the trend" or a "rebel" or whatever.

The link I provided broke out the taxes into excise and other taxes. So that's state+federal excise taxes plus other things like "environmental fees, storage tank taxes, other fees or taxes, and general sales tax" for a combined rate of forty-eight and six tenths cents per gallon. That's also based on the API's February 2012 prices.

You are wrong. Both links referred to data gather by the American Petroleum Institute. The Tax Foundation link lists the combined tax and fees for each state but does not include the Federal excise tax on gas which is currently 18.4 cents per gallon. The API.org data does include the Federal excise gas in it's total gas tax/fees chart, so the two charts do in fact match and are the result of the same data set.

So, no California does not charge fifty cents more per gallon of unleaded gasoline in taxes than most states.

A quick glance at the chart you provided clearly shows that you are correct in this assessment.

Did you even bother to read, well, anything other than your bullshit tea bagger propaganda? The link you provided is nothing but failed reading comprehension and awful scare tactics. High property taxes even with Prop. 13? Two percent of a McMansion in Malibu is still going to be a lot more than a twenty percent tax levied on a yurt in Oklahoma. Blame big government. lawl.

The link I provided broke out the taxes into excise and other taxes. So that's state+federal excise taxes plus other things like "environmental fees, storage tank taxes, other fees or taxes, and general sales tax" for a combined rate of forty-eight and six tenths cents per gallon. That's also based on the API's February 2012 prices.

If you want to look at the link that you provided, go ahead. The fear mongers come up with higher numbers that aren't directly comparable to the ones I provided. Look at the API data the tea baggers use. California's at 69.0 cents (same #2 rank) per gallon, with an average of 49.5 cents. Per the link you posted, including DC, the only state with less than 30 cents per gallon in combined taxes is Alaska.

So, no California does not charge fifty cents more per gallon of unleaded gasoline in taxes than most states.

The average tax for all local, state and federal taxes on diesel fuel is only 5.1 cents per gallon more than the tax on gasoline, That still does not explain the nominally 45 cent difference in price (on average). There are additional factors, such as refining cost and capacity and competition with heating oil refinery capacity, that help to explain the difference, but the saying that diesel is a cheaper fuel is wrong. There are costs beyond the price also that actually make gasoline more cost effective.

High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.

I don't know where you live, but in the USA, Diesel is only taxed around 5 cents on average higher than gasoline (54.6 cents/gallon versus 49.5 -- but it varies by state... in pennsylvania, for example, diesel is taxed 13 cents more than gasoline, but that's still only around 3% higher)

http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Overview/Industry-Economics/~/media/21EBD0B62EBA42B1965EE82EFFB6585D.ashx
http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Overview/Industry-Economics/~/media/A375B82CC4184656A093C6168A1DD08E.ashx

So that 1.25% differential hardly seems enough to sway someone from one fuel to another, especially given the greater efficiency and higher energy density that comes with Diesel.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that trucks are undertaxed. Commercial trucks make up 12.5 percent of all registered vehicles, but paid 36.5 percent of total highway-user taxes in 2006.

If the purpose of taxing trucks is to pay for the road infrastructure that they use, they should be paying much higher taxes. Road damage roughly increases with the cube of the weight of a vehicle. To cover its wear and tear costs, a 40,000 pound truck (which weighs 10 times more than a 4,000 pound car) should be paying 1000 times more in taxes than the car.

So trucks are being subsidized by lower taxes than they'd otherwise pay for the infrastructure they depend on.

High fuel taxes on diesel, because 18-wheelers are business assets and gov't loves to tax business, since it's hidden from the consumer.

I don't know where you live, but in the USA, Diesel is only taxed around 5 cents on average higher than gasoline (54.6 cents/gallon versus 49.5 -- but it varies by state... in pennsylvania, for example, diesel is taxed 13 cents more than gasoline, but that's still only around 3% higher)

http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Overview/Industry-Economics/~/media/21EBD0B62EBA42B1965EE82EFFB6585D.ashx
http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Overview/Industry-Economics/~/media/A375B82CC4184656A093C6168A1DD08E.ashx

So that 1.25% differential hardly seems enough to sway someone from one fuel to another, especially given the greater efficiency and higher energy density that comes with Diesel.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that trucks are undertaxed. Commercial trucks make up 12.5 percent of all registered vehicles, but paid 36.5 percent of total highway-user taxes in 2006.

If the purpose of taxing trucks is to pay for the road infrastructure that they use, they should be paying much higher taxes. Road damage roughly increases with the cube of the weight of a vehicle. To cover its wear and tear costs, a 40,000 pound truck (which weighs 10 times more than a 4,000 pound car) should be paying 1000 times more in taxes than the car.

So trucks are being subsidized by lower taxes than they'd otherwise pay for the infrastructure they depend on.

Avg gas taxes: 49.5 cents per gallon
Avg diesel taxes: 54.6 cents per gallon
http://www.api.org/Oil-and-Natural-Gas-Overview/Industry-Economics/Fuel-Taxes.aspx

So literally $0.05 cents per gallon extra in taxes for diesel (which is $4.004/gal)

If your data is good and you did things right, there is no anti-you crowd to worry about. If your data is trying to back up a preset agenda instead of going where the evidence takes you.....well then you should expect strong resistance from others who disagree with your findings.

This isn't tobacco. Comparisons to the tobacco industry are not warranted. The ASME and API would both be more than happy to accept and publish your work if you find evidence that supports or challenges what they already know. Petroleum and Petro engineering have a solid 100 year history of advancements so I am going to warn you that the task ahead is not easy. However, if you are right and have evidence to back it up, you can pretty much write your own ticket to any career you desire. And the petro industry will be the first ones on your doorstep throwing large amounts of money at you so you can figure out more stuff.

The only people who worry about the "anti-you" crowd are those who don't know what they are talking about.

The taxes vary from state to state, but US averages are 5.5 cents per gallon higher for diesel. That is not significant when fuel is ~$3.50/gal. I've heard oil industry people say that it is due to refinery capacity issues.

The US gas production is more and more dependent on shale gas production, due to the progress of the hydraulic fracturing technique . Although the American Petroleum Institute claims that there this technique pose little or no threat to underground drinking water, environmentalists say otherwise and their voice has been gaining strength thanks to the recently released Gasland documentary film.
What is clear to me is that there is no reason to explain why Dick Cheney exempted the gas drilling industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act, but to protect the gas industry profitability...
To be fair with Democrats, I also have to say that Obama strongly supports shale gas extraction. Good luck, America!

So do I trust you and "others" real-life testing, or do I trust laboratory test results published by API http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/gasoline-octane.cfm, the FTC http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/aut12.shtm, and many independent 3rd party consumer action groups?

The chemical equations are nice and all for octane, hexane, and whatever other chemical reactions you can come up with. And I might believe you if you could tell me the exact chemical ratios between different hydrocarbon chains in both regular and premium gasoline. I'd bet you can't, because there is more variation in fuels between different regions (yes we have regional blends), different climates (different RVP for different temps), and the transportation process (many times premium is downgraded and sold as regular) than there is between regular and premium. In addition, refineries don't just produce "regular" and "premium", they produce many products ranging from RBOB (commonly referred to as blendgrade) to 94 octane fuels. These are all blended between fuels or downgraded to be sold at the dispenser.

From the linked API article (since you obviously didn't check the linked posts on the previous):

Gasoline with a higher heating value (energy content) provides better fuel economy. Traditionally, premium gasoline has had a slightly higher heating value than regular, and, thus, provides slightly better fuel economy, but it is difficult to detect in normal driving. There can be even larger differences in heating value between batches of gasoline from the same refinery, between summer and winter volatility classes, or between brands of gasoline from different refineries because of compositional differences. The differences are small and there is no practical way for the consumer to identify gasoline with a higher-than-average heating value.

In other words, premium MAY give you better fuel economy, but it is just as likely that the fuel just came from a different refinery, or a different seasonal blend... Neither of which you have any control over or can determine at the pump.

Refinery cracking is not a theory, nor is distillation. What is a theory is your idea that you've done some sort of controlled tests on one vehicle that proves premium has more energy content than regular. And I'm telling you that the science (chemical and experimental testing) doesn't support that.

I just filled up yesterday, $2.43/gal Toledo, Ohio...

I could of used my "Kroger" card (Grocery Store that offers "Fuel Perks") and got $.20/gal off!
(I forgot I had it still to use... DAH!)

But, before we start a gas price thread, just remember how much of that is Federal and State taxes.

For Ohio, out of the $2.439/gal, $0.464/gal is taxes. So REAL gas is $1.975/Gal
Of that $0.464, 0.28/gal is STATE tax, and $0.184/gal is federal taxes

California is $0.650 total tax for the state, so if federal is $0.184/gal, then
you state of California is getting $0.466/gal taxes... Your in the red on the following map:

State gas/gal Tax map:

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/GASOLINE_TAX_MAP_JAN2010.pdf

Some more fun state tax info... I like the per gallon of beer tax breakout... :(

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/245.html

" and they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was to be used as evidence against us."

total government expenditures (federal, state, and local) on highways were almost $100 billion [...]. Please, please try to tell me that this doesn't constitute a massive subsidy [...] to trucking and other industries that depend on highways for their existence.

Just curious, did you happen to think to look up usage based revenues like gas tax, registration fees, etc.? Just asking...

If the government built the water system you get your water from and funds its construction and ongoing maintenance with a "per gallon used" fee, it's not a "subsidy".

Umm citation needed?

I don't know where you are getting your peak oil ideas are coming from... Maybe you should do some more research: http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/upload/truth_primer.pdf (sorry about the PDF). Peak oil predictions always seem to be based on current reserves. Technology to explore new fields and to access previously unavailable sources will easily match the pace of increased demand for quite a while.

I agree with your nuclear point. It makes sense for stationary power plants, but until you get a reactor the size of a car engine, it won't work for transportation. In the meantime, we need oil and gas. The cap and trade bill will increase the cost of everything, and the only people who win are the politicians.

Where did you get your numbers? They are out of wack with reality for the vast majority of states (see link below). Also FEMA is not a tax but a government agency. Finally, many would argue that increasing the tax on gasoline would lead to a more sustainable economy less dependent on oil in general and more centralized. Here is a link to the gasoline taxes by state. http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/

Businessweek's numbers on diesel taxes are disputed by the American Petroleum Institute:

As of October 1, 2008:

• The nationwide average tax on gasoline is 48.4 cents per gallon as of October 2008, down 1 cent from July 2008.
• The nationwide average tax on motor diesel fuel is 53.6, a decrease of 2.8 cents from the July 2008 study.

Or maybe doesn't have time to hang out on Slashdot. Actually, the GP comment was based off of inaccuracies in LynnwoodRooster's other comment. Here's a couple that stand out from this one:

The SLUT is actually named the South Lake Union Streetcar. It's unclear if it was never officially named the SLUT, or if the name was changed quickly. Ha ha.

Highest gas tax in the nation? Try http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/upload/State-Motor-Fuel-Tax-Rates.pdf and see it's the 6th highest. High, but not the highest in the nation.

I want to know where this 33% 'actual cash being spent' number came from, because the best I can find is the 2007-09 budget compared to the 2003-05 budget, at 28% increase. That's without any correction for inflation, either, or for additional services needed for the 6.4% population growth in that time. http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Oversight/histtot.pdf http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/poptrends/poptrends_07.pdf

And that that '3 times the workforce' growth of the state? Well, let's see: http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Oversight/histfte.pdf Looks like a 5.75% growth in FTEs at the same time as that 6.4% population growth. You're right! That's CRAZY!

Seriously, not everything you say is wrong, but there's plenty of unsourced, fluffed up statements in there. Next time, try showing us where you got the numbers from so that we can look and decide for ourselves. I don't totally disagree with you, either. Government spending is growing too quickly in this state. But the doom and gloom that you're presenting? It's over the top and alarmist.

Washington does not have the highest gas tax, not surprisingly it's actually CA. Just search for gas taxes by state on google. Here's a direct link as well.

Washington ... has the highest gas tax in the nation.

Not according to http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/upload/State-Motor-Fuel-Tax-Rates.pdf; it's high (60.4 cents per gallon, incl. federal taxes), but behind (from highest to lowest) Hawaii (69.5), California, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut (61.4). The table shows a US average of 52.9 and the lowest taxes as Alaska (32.4), Oklahoma and Wyoming (both 38.4), and Kentucky (39.9), with the rest falling in between.

Reducing the amount of REFINED fuel (in this case diesel vs. gasoline) and saving $ != reducing crude oil consumption. Per http://www.api.org/classroom/tools/upload/oilfacts _rgb.pdf, a barrel of crude oil produces many products but it produces 2x the amount of gasoline as it does diesel. So, getting 60 mpg of diesel used the same amount of mostly imported foreign oil as a 30 mpg gasoline car.

From what I've read, the taxation system in Europe is goofy and setup in such a way that diesel is much cheaper than gasoline. So, of course it makes sense to sell lots of diesels there.

Hybrids are not tied to a particular fuel source such as gasoline. There can be ethanol based hybrids and there are diesel hybrids already.

That said, reducing the amount of REFINED fuel and saving $ != reducing crude oil consumption. Per http://www.api.org/classroom/tools/upload/oilfacts _rgb.pdf, a barrel of crude oil produces many products but it produces 2x the amount of gasoline as it does diesel. So, getting 60 mpg of diesel used the same amount of mostly imported foreign oil as a 30 mpg gasoline car.

I *completely* agree that fatalism is a Very Bad Thing. No argument from me in that regard. However: I do not see the disappearance of industrialism as Bad. Unfortunate, yes, but not "Bad".

Fusion will change things, IF it ever works. Unfortunately, the world is industrialising rapidly, and the fastest, surest way to do that is via petroleum. This results in an increased demand on an inherently limited resource. Resource extraction follows a kind of bell curve - oil, copper, whatever - its rises levels off, and then goes into depletion. You are correct *in theory* with your point about "primary energy". Given enough energy, we can pull huge quantities of metal out of seawater. What one would do with the resulting sludge is another matter, but in a reductivist view, yes: enough energy gives you everything you need.

However: there is this practical issue involved: time. We extract (x) amount of petroleum a day. There is only (Y) left. The rate of demand increases (D). As (x) decreases (viz hubbert curve) and D increases, prices skyrocket, and it becomes increasingly difficult to use the energy oen does have to prepare for a time when that energy source is gone.

A few factual points: You said "since oil is NOT used in asphalt & plastics because of it being an energy source.", you are completely incorrect. Plastics occupy a sizeable percentage of the petroleum pulled from the ground, as does the glop required for asphalt. From: Facts About Fossil Fuels

The oil refining process separates crude oil into different hydrocarbons and removes impurities such as sulfur, nitrogen, and heavy metals. The first step is fractional distillation, a process that takes advantage of the fact that different hydrocarbons boil at different temperatures. In a tall tower called a fractionating column, crude oil is heated until it boils. Horizontal trays divide the column at intervals. As the oil boils, it vaporizes. Each hydrocarbon rises to a tray at a temperature just below its own boiling point. There, it cools and turns back into a liquid.

The lightest fractions are liquefied petroleum gases (propane and butane) and the petrochemicals used to make plastics, fabrics, and a wide array of consumer products. Next come gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel. Heavier fractions make home heating oil and fuel for ships and factories. Still heavier fractions are made into lubricants and waxes. The remains include asphalt.

So: peak oil == peak asphalt. And peak Kerosene. And Peak plastics. and peak candles.

The other problem is this: our miraculous "Green Revolution" is predicated on natural gas in fertiliser. Peak Gas == peak fertiliser. No gas == Different Sources for fertiliser, none of which as rich and intense as the stuff we get from below.

I am *not* a doomer. You want a doomer? Jay Hanson fits the bill nicely. I am actually a very positive person on this. What I am opposed to is the delusional thinking of the techno-positivist cornucopians. There is no magic energy faerie that is going to save this wasteful stupid lifestyle. Exponential population growth Will Stop. It's not a question of IF, it's merely a matter of When and How. Resource depletion will not continue indefinitely. Again: not a question of IF, just a matter of When and How.

Since it cannot be avoided, the question is, "how do we get from here to there?"

You wrote:

I tell you what I think will happen: alternative energies, regionalized energy production, ecologically neutral cities designed for walking & biking will boom. Cars will be used less (no point to drive much in a city anyway) and move to ethanol, liquified coal, hydrogen, or even batteries/supercapacitors. Yes, the transition phase will be hard. Population growth will slow down, if not stop. But the outcome could actually be BETTER than today's world.

They should be focusing on alternative energy sources themselves because oil isn't going to last forever and they can get a jump on the future with their own research.

First of all, what makes you think they aren't? Read here, here, here, and here, for example.

Secondly, what makes you think a bunch of ex-divorce lawyers in Sacramento who don't have a dime of their own at stake have better ideas about investing in new energy research than folks with PhD's in chemical engineering and economics, who work at a major oil company's research division, and who have their pensions on the line?

Third, the way government research typically works, and works best, is when you already have a gaggle of researchers doing the work because the science (and not a popular vote) says it's worth pursuing, and you have them compete for funding. That's how the NSF works, or DARPA, for example. The stiff competition means only the best (with some obnoxious exceptions) get funded and you need to produce sound results to keep your funding. What do you suppose happens when you turn the process around and begin with the huge pile of cash, then wait to see who it attracts? Do you think you will get the best research? Or will you get a whole lot of goofballs, incompetents, and perpetual-motion weirdos who are just sane enough to use plenty of politically-correct buzzwords in their application?

Fourth, maybe the folks on the other side should also think long-term, too. If you're in the alternative-energy biz, shouldn't you be focussing on alternative capital sources (such as the marketplace), since free money from the taxpayers can't last forever?

You can get a list of the U.S. gasoline tax rates from the American Petroleum Institute website at

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/StateMotorFuelRa tes.pdf

Currently funding is much easier to get if your project is geared to "proving" global warming than "disproving" it.

Uh, right. There's no one out there interested in funding research that attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

Once again people post crap without looking anything up....aside from being off topic you're wrong. Here are several articles from the cell phone and petroleum industries which are provided below to give you the correct information.

Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)-

                        http://www.pei.org/static/

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) -

                        http://www.ctia.org/news_media/press/body.cfm?reco rd_id=377

                        http://www.ctia.org/news_media/press/body.cfm?reco rd_id=407

Urban Legends -

                        http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp

American Petroleum Institute (API) -

                        http://api-ec.api.org/media/index.cfm?objectid=4BB B0597-308E-49BE-9F513DE9A8B0C156&method=display_bo dy&er=1&bitmask=001007000000000000

Wired News -

                        http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,58188,00 .html

picking nits...

We (the U.S.) get more oil from Saudi Arabia than any other nation.

A semantic quibble.

That's actually a pretty good question - spoken like a true geographer. They create the maps of petro reserves by drilling wells until they find oil. Then, they progress outwards radially until the production becomes economically unviable.

At first, I'm sure they found oil/gas by accident, or through random drilling. As the correlations developed between geologic formations and "black gold", they were able to find clues that led to improvements in exploration efficiency.

This is a big deal, economically. If you can find a major reserve before anyone else, you can acquire mineral rights, right of way, infrastructure, and property much cheaper than your competitors. Your cost of operating is much lower if you can beat the rush. Big companies spend thousands every month to get data on where new wells are being drilled. (http://www.rigdata.com/)

* * *

When I say chemical structure, I mean the actual hydrocarbons making up the fuel. For example, methane is CH4. It is my understanding that similar types of carbon chains are found in living organisms.

For a more mainstream view, check out the American Petroleum Institute's website.

Jack Welch saw it back in 1996, when he famously complained, "There is no pricing power at all." The environment is even tougher today.

The last time gas prices spiked like this, about two years ago, there were a few feeble attempts to boycott gas stations until they stopped gouging consumers. The gas stations said it was the oil companies that made them raise prices; recently, a spokesperson from the American Petroleum Institute said in an article that it's up to the individual station owners (saw it in a local paper a few days ago, but can't find an online copy of that piece). The boycott went nowhere.

If you really want to promote alternatives then demand earlier introduction of low sulfur fuel. Some more info here and yes, the pretroleum industry is whining about cost increase, while even the car industry is demanding this fuel...

While it is true that you don't pump crude oil into your car, the refining process (as I understand it) breaks down the crude oil into its component parts and then selectively reconfigures them into the desired products. The current average product mix is about 45% gasoline. (19.5 gallons per barrel) This can be compared historically to 70 years ago when only 25% was refined into gasoline. All told 80% of a barrel of oil is used for transportation or heating purposes - for which alternative energy sources are feasible. In scanning several petroleum organization websites I was disturbed to find that even they claim that there is only 80-90 years supply of oil left at current consumption levels. Taking this as the most optimistic estimate I believe my concerns are legitimate.