Slashdot Mirror
Obama Wants To Fund Clean Energy Research With Oil & Gas Funds
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama Administration has put forth a proposal to collect $2 billion over the next 10 years from revenues generated by oil and gas development to fund scientific research into clean energy technologies. The administration hopes the research would help 'protect American families from spikes in gas prices and allow us to run our cars and trucks on electricity or homegrown fuels.' In a speech at Argonne National Laboratory, Obama said the private sector couldn't afford such research, which puts the onus on government to keep it going. Of course, it'll still be difficult to get everyone on board: 'The notion of funding alternative energy research with fossil fuel revenues has been endorsed in different forms by Republican politicians, including Alaskan senator Lisa Murkowsi. But the president still faces an uphill battle passing any major energy law, given how politicized programs to promote clean energy have become in the wake of high-profile failures of government-backed companies.'"
The notion of funding alternative energy research with fossil fuel revenues has been endorsed in different forms by Republican politicians
Until the president proposes it, then it automatically becomes "socialism" and they'll oppose it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Will he stop the subsidizing of the oil companies?
No? Well that seems like a few wasted steps in there to turn our money into funds for clean energy...
I still can't believe you morons elected him. Twice.
So-called 'green' energy (which happens to not be very environmentally friendly once production and disposal is included) isn't ready for prime time and trying to force an evolution in the technology by blindly throwing money at it is a case study in insanity. All you are going to do is hurt people by making every day living more expensive for little to no gain. It will happen organically on its own, it doesn't need government intervention.
It is unfortunate that government is apt to pursue political solutions rather than viable practical solutions. That's the world we live in.
The premise here is that gas and oil companies should be punished, and their gains should be confiscated and given to other companies with better intentions. The real world truth is that there are no oil or gas companies anymore, and there hasn't been for the last fifteen years, at least.
No, what used to be oil companies have all become energy companies. They all invest heavily in alternative energy technologies, because they have the most to lose if anything does become viable and threatens their current revenue generators. I've spoken with several former CEO's of these former oil companies, and they were, to a person, fixated on the end of oil and the emergence of alternative energy sources. I left these conversations wondering why these CEO's were more pro-alternative than any environmentalist I had ever met.
The government confiscation of funds from these companies, and the eventual redistribution to campaign donors fronting "new" energy companies will only slow down the discovery of practical and sustainable alternative energy sources.
-- Len
-
1> On what basis does he conclude that private enterprises cannot invest that much? The first question I have is cannot or will not? That said, I've seen them invest plenty over the years to bring down the price of solar and bring wind production to the world. They problem is that the ROI for the past 20 years has not been as high as hoped. Who says the ROI on deficit spending will be any better?
2> Until we eliminate our deficit, does it make sense to spend money on non-essential high risks?
-
That said, if we are going to subsidize an industry, I'd rather see it go into research than something like Ethanol production. The question is, how, in today's world, or tomorrow's world, can you guarantee this can help America? What's the detailed plan for turning this research into an American benefit? I understood how this worked 50 years ago. I'm not sure I understand how it is supposed to work today with global companies, and China and Europe investing a lot in this.
Unless you count the oil depletion allowance as a "subsidy".
But by that definition, then every industry gets a "subsidy" in terms of depreciation and other tax breaks.
But how big is it? About $2.4B annually total for all oil companies between 2011 and 2012.
Obama spent more than that on failed alternative energy speculation in the same time period.
It's probably a bit much for the private sector to fund projects to support political strategy with planning horizons measured in decades.
With private business, particularly in the US (and increasingy in Europe) where their management tend to be infested with barely educated cookie-cutter MBA pindicks who are incapable of planning beyond the next reporting season, you just can't expect much.
Thus, if I actually cared about the West, and the sort of world we want to see for our grandkids, I would like to see a partnership of business and industry, rather than letting business to their own devices. Because you know those slimy dicks would have us enslaved by the Chinese and the Arabs if they thought they could make next quarter's sales targets.
1) bump federal tax on gas/diesel by .20 this year. .10 to go to R&D (which should also be used for oil/gas, coal, and nukes), and .1 to go to fed/state DOTs. The .1 from diesel (which is mostly interstate trucking) goes to the feds, while the .1 increase from gas goes to the state's DOT. Then next year, increase it .1 again, but all of that goes to the DOTs. Do that for the next 4 years.
2) put some of the federal DOT money into pushing CNG/LNG/electrical charging stations along the federal highways.
3) allow keystone to go through.
4) increase oil/NG drilling offshore and in various federal lands, but with an eye towards keeping the environment clean.
5) put together a COTs type fund for thorium nuclear power along with some money for the possible fusion reactor that livermore has.
6) put together a tax incentive to get coal=>methane going. That is relatively clean energy and interestingly, produces a number of elements that we need esp. U and Th.
The word is COMPROMISE.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
These days, and this is only an unsubstantiated instinct not anything backed by fact, it seems like "clean energy" is more akin to "perpetual motion" than science. That goes for "clean" coal as well, which is truly in unicorn territory.
I'd like to see a detailed offering of what he intends to fund, and what concessions he's willing to make on "actual energy" solutions in the interim, rather than allow a blank check to be written for what amounts to venture capital measures.
Where the money comes from and what you spend it on are orthogonal decisions, and each should be made on its own merits. They are logically orthogonal decisions because once you have 2 billion dollars, you can decide to spend it on whatever makes the most sense.
Generally speaking, funding alternative energy is absolutely necessary, but the devil is in the details. Government money spent right could achieve much more benefit than private sector spending, or it might be wasted, depending on exactly how it is allocated.
As to taking revenue from oil or gas, it's not even clear from the article whether the revenue will represent a new kind of tax, or existing revenue will be used. In a new tax, it's not clear what the benefits of this would be.
By the sounds of things, idea generation. In reality, they're there to be appeal to different cultures. There isn't that large of a policy gap, that's for sure, but the rhetoric is radically different.
"Clean coal" is about as much an actual real thing as an "honest politician".
I thought they had figured out how to do it (the coal, that is, not the politician). See a story from a few weeks back: New Process Takes Energy From Coal Without Burning It
Will the cash be going to this go around?
By the sounds of things, idea generation.
Yeah, last week someone described Ryan's "new" budget as Ayn Rand fan fiction.
In reality, they're there to be appeal to different cultures. There isn't that large of a policy gap, that's for sure, but the rhetoric is radically different.
In reality, they're there to help the rich get richer. Their appeal to "different cultures" is just a matter of exploiting anyone whose knees they can make jerk, so that they'll vote against their own best interests.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Let's see some Butanol.
Let's see the money the US government spent on biodiesel research at Sandia NREL in the 1980s bear some fruit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can somebody tell me why they can't put a refinery up in Canada, or even in ND where there is lots of oil. Running a pipeline all the way across the country just so this tar sand oil can be put through refineries that are going to be shut down by the storms in the gulf which are getting bigger due to climate change seems silly.
How very... trollish of you.
Can't argue that government subsidies of industry have a long history of being more about cronyism than anything else, so how about we "subsidize" green energy development in a completely even-handed manner governed by the free market? By phasing out the massive subsidies and environmental protection exemptions we're handing out to fossil fuel suppliers on an ongoing basis.
As fuel prices begin to rise *every* green energy project will start to look more attractive to investors, and we can stimulate dramatic investment in the field while simultaneously reducing government expenditure. If we're worried about the chilling effect that would have on the poor and the broader economy we can repurpose those funds in terms of, say, a refundable tax credit so that most people and businesses will see no net change, but will have greater incentive to pursue energy efficiency which would provide a net increase in available funds versus the status quo.
If we're worried about undermining domestic oil production versus foreign then fuel tariffs are the obvious answer. There may be some political fallout from that, but so long as they're tied to offset the reduction in subsidies I suspect most other governments actually wouldn't have a real problem with them, though they'd no doubt make some noise to gain political capital. Heck, earmark the tariff revenue for the tax refund coffers and everyone will see an immediate benefit except the oil companies. If we're willing to spend a bit of political capital and risk setting off a trade war we could even set the tariffs high enough to offset the loss in subsidies so that the domestic oil companies benefit as well.
Seems like it could be a big win all around. Am I missing something?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"But the president still faces an uphill battle passing any major energy law, given how politicized programs to promote clean energy have become in the wake of high-profile failures of government-backed companies that were owned and run by Obama's friends and campaign donors."
Fixed it.
Do you have ESP?
We’ve learned that certain behaviors on the part of an abuser portend much more danger than other behaviors. For example, if an abuser has attempted to strangle his victim, if he has threatened to shoot her, if he has sexually assaulted her, and there’s a number of other signs, about eight others. These are tell-tale signs to say this isn’t your garden-variety slap across the face, which is totally unacceptable in and of itself.
As for which party hates women... Ooh ooh can I take a guess? Is it the one that The one that says women can't control their own bodies and are not entitled to birth control as part of their health insurance?
So we're the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and coal, and have vast amounts of oil to last for decades at minimum. Why does he want to spend our money on this?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I appreciate that an AC thinks I am an astroturfer, but I assure you I am not. I don't work for any energy company, and I don't actually know anything about the Koch Brothers, although I gather they are somehow like a George Soros of the right.
Don't assume that because someone doesn't agree with your point of view, they are bought and paid for by some monied entity. Blind adhesion to an ideology is an expensive sort of ignorance. Get better educated by venturing outside of whatever echo chamber you occupy. Ask just as many questions about that which you believe, as you would about that with which you disagree.
Without questioning everything, you never will know how weak or solid your position is. It is my opinion that many politicians, the President not the least of whom, rely on the ignorance of the general populace to repeatedly build straw men. Most of these are flimsy facades held together with sneering rhetoric, and little factual basis. There are villains in the corporate world, but the vast majority of public companies are not the malevolent actors that they are painted as. Most are afraid of the regulatory clubs that the government wields.
-- Len
...between funding research and funding companies.
Fund research at national laboratories and universities and then license the technologies (for a reasonable but small fee) to companies to commercialize.
That is fundamentally different from funding (or technically guaranteeing loans) particular companies. Especially since their research will probably be patented and proprietary.
Just sayin'.
I think it's the one where the majority of candidates agree with Todd Akin's comments about rape being legitimate. How can you possibly justify saying that it's okay to rape?
like biofuels (inefficient solar collectors that don't scale without ecologically disastrous consequences), ethanol (breakeven or negative net energy) are obvious losers. This is something that needs science oversight, not political oversight. Political oversight gets you ethanol, or whatever idiocy gets you elected next term. You need people who can handle math and physics for this one, not senators.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Because they will profit from it or they will not. The Government is in debt the money tree is dead.
the problem with the republican party is that there isn't really "a" republican party... there are the sheep candidates that follow whatever the latest news is on CNN (Romney) and there are the libertarians like Ron Paul that would have had a run for the presidency if the republican primary vote was actually fair (as in whole electorates in favor of paul not being excluded).
obama won on the idiot vote (everyone on welfare wants more welfare so they will always vote for the guy promising more welfare).
Let's not miss an important aspect of this: Obama just proposed ACTUAL POLICY SPECIFICS. This is really turning over a new leaf for him.
So if you don't want to loose this race to Europe or even more the Chinese, then the government has to invest more than just $20 billion dollars.
I'm not 100% sold that we need to win this race. If China wants to subsidize solar panels for US citizens, what's the harm? Yes, they will distort the market and the US will lose some solar panel manufacturing jobs, but in return they get pieces of paper... IOUs. So we get real stuff that pumps out electricity and they get paper producing less than 1% interest. And then, at some point, they will probably want to cash in that paper (at inflation reduced value). What will they buy with it? American goods and services! So here come the jobs back...
The whole strategy of subsidizing industries is short-sighted and ultimately a loss. The only way it can work is if you completely monopolize production and then make a ton of money by gouging until alternative supply can ramp up.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Perhaps if I had cable...
I prefer to dig into topics until I have a solid factual basis to form my opinions. It is called being intellectually honest. You may want to try it sometime, at least to give some backing to your righteousness.
I'm not dismissive of you because of any "news" outlet you may or may not use, so I'd expect the same courtesy.
-- Len
You assume that electric cars have 100% efficiency which is not the case. Charging is inefficient, and the electric motor also adds some loss. Not to mention the extra weight of all the batteries.
The reality is that majority of the voters are morons
Thank you for an unusual dose of honesty. Here you show that indeed you despise voters and democracy itself.
This of course fits well with your standard M.O. of removing rights from the people. You pretend to be offering parity and compassion to people, when you are indeed striving to suppress the people of lower economic classes as much as you possibly can. You aim to take away their right to vote while simultaneously taking away their rights as citizens, employees, and human beings.
In other words, you came to be trying to bring liberty, while you obviously aim to deliver fascism for the people.
Sigh. I hate to tell you this, but by raising the prices slowly, it avoids hitting the poor. Look at Europe and other nations. They raised their taxes slowly over a long period of time to give ppl time to adjust to buying more efficient cars. In addition, our roads, bridges, dams, etc are crumbling. Why? Because we are not taxing enough. And considering that oil is expected to be around 50/bl next fall, this is dirt cheap time to raise these. And adding even .1/gal to 3.5 is not that much.
It is LONG past time to raise taxes. If the gas tax goes to the states and the diesel tax goes to the highway system, then we will see repairs everywhere.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We have reached oil peak, or will be reach it soon. Oil will tend to get more and more scarce and expensive. Market invisible hand seems unable to do anything about it (except lying about reserves), therefore it is high time that state visible hand gets involved. At least if we want to avoid chaos where we will have to choose between food, transport, or oil wars.
Argonaut Ventures (the tax shelter of billionaire George Kaiser (an Obama "bundler")) was one of the biggest investors in Solyndra. Kaiser and his people are frequent visitors to Obama and none of us knows what they say to each other in private, but in addition to landing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars directly for Solyndra, in 2010 Obama cut a slick little deal with them that lets them xfer losses from Solyndra to Argonaut. Why? Well since Solyndra was not making money, losses could not offset anything there to further reduce taxes there... but allowing a rich family's fund to record the losses lets it depress its tax status... Abra Cadabra! Shazam! Another rich Democrat family keeps and passes-on its inherited wealth from one generation to the next (like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers etc) This is just one dirty little tale of the folks behind the scam called Solyndra... it was not a Republican company nor were its investors aligned with the Republicans (you seem to have just extracted that from your posterior). On the off-chance that you are just a mindless Obamabot and are citing things you think you remember hearing somewhere, the Republicans did have ONE involvement with Solyndra: The company came-up for consideration for a DOE loan under the Bush administration, and after the Bush people looked into it they said, in effect, "Are you KIDDING???? this thing is a house of cards with no future and the taxpayers would take a hit!". As a result, Bush rejected the idea of funneling taxpayer money to a "business" run by people who had no viable plan for success in a free market.
The GAO (non-partisan) reports that $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted under just one of the "green energy" programs went to companies that were run or owned by Obama financial backers (the trend was similar in the other related programs). They further reported that in the initial wave of loans "none were properly documented" and officials “did not always record the results of analysis” the loan programs lacked performance measures and "No notes were kept during the review process" (of the loans) so there is not even a record of why each company got a loan, how the size of the loan was determined and under what conditions the load would be cancelled. In many cases the loans went to companies that then went bust (without re-paying the taxpayer) and in the case of Solyndra the Obama DOE blatantly and illegally placed the shareholders (Obama supporters) ahead of the taxpayers in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Steve Westly (another Obama fundraising "bundler") was given a position as an "advisor" for the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu... VERY convenient when you want DOE to hand out hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to "green companies". The Obama admin is awash in venture capitalists who bundled money to get him elected and who then got loans that will never be repaid (Obama had to get his BILLION dollar campaign war-chest from SOMEWERE... and that somewhere was never going to be the unwashed hippie park campers of the "occupy movement").
The current tally does not support you claims of success... Solyndra was not the only one that went down... heard of " VantagePoint Venture Partners" or "Ener1" or "Amyris"??? You ought to read-up because you will be paying higher taxes for the rest of you life to pay "you fair share" of the the extra debts incurred fgunding all this stuff
"Yes, Obama speaks in public about compromise and balance and other poll-tested warm-and-fuzzy PR propaganda words... but he has steadfastly refused to put any actual cuts on paper with specificity. "
Bing! Wrong. Obama proposed specific cuts in "The Great Bargain" debacle 3 years ago. Do you remember about it? Republicans scuttled it.
This year Obama simply said: "You're Congress. It's your job. Do it." and asked them to prepare a plan.
How about the one that hasn't put a woman up on a presidential ticket? (VP or Pres)...?
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Until the moment China decides: "no more _cheap_ solar panels for _you_". Then suddenly it makes all your enterprise to be at a disadvantage compared to native Chinese manufacturing. Oh, and also China would get an R&D infrastructure built and ready so you won't be able to overtake them.
Outlet-to-wheels efficiency of electric cars is about 90% and can fairly easy go to 95% or so. That's the real-world data from Nissan LEAF and Chevy Volt.
sesame oil can be used in diesel engines.
Tell me... did you believe, regurgitate, cite as authority etc the White House web site when it was Bush and the subject was "Iraq" or "Waterboarding"?????
Yeah, because an accounting audit of a congressional program is so totally nebulous that anyone can make up anything they want about it and nobody would be the wiser.
If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare it to the statements that Obama and company have made about drone strikes. They are being at least as secretive as Bush was about WMDs in Iraq and torture, and are at least as untrustworthy on the unverifiable details.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
She raised the amount that each family gets each year from the oil beneath their state..
No, she did not. She tried to eliminate it and failed. The formula to generate the PFD is set by law, the one she tried to change to take the PFD from the people and use it to increase the size of the government. But then, I wouldn't expect some arrogant coward who gets all his news from talk radio to have a passing ability to recognize facts.
Learn to love Alaska
The taxes on fossil fuels should be used to pay down the debt.
The US government should get out of the business of handing out money for product-oriented research.
Our roads aren't crumbling for lack of money. They're crumbling for lack of fucks given. Companies are chosen to work on roads not because they will build a better road, but based on corruption. Everywhere I've lived, I've seen this in action. That doesn't prove it's everywhere, but as far as I can tell, it is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You will remember great hits like Solendra, A123, and Fisker.
This is a perfect example of a successful political hit-job. Yes Solendra et al. was a waste of money. But have you ever heard of a venture capital operation losing money? It happens all the time. The statistic you should be interested in is how money the parent program dished out in loans, how much was paid back, and home many successful new companies we have.
/designed/ to poison the discourse with misinformation.
Do you know those statistics? Didn't think so. That is because they are not suitable Fox/Rush talking points.
Political discourse is
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
So the money isn't wasted because it is used to prevent other people from selling us stuff at low prices?
If you want the USA to be a leader on the technologies of tomorrow, then it is not a waste. If you want the USA to lose its technical advantage, then sure, it is a waste of money. Let foreign countries engage in begger-thy-neighbor economic politices.
Your argument really is adolescent in its simplicity. There are people who actually study the economy, and know things about it. Great champions of the free market, such as Adam Smith, and Friedrich Hayek, explicitly endorsed the role of the government in the economy. It has always been this way. The great conservative experiment on market fundamentalism is anti-intellectual, and frankly dangerous.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Until the moment China decides: "no more _cheap_ solar panels for _you_". Then suddenly it makes all your enterprise to be at a disadvantage compared to native Chinese manufacturing.
Yes, well, I mentioned that scenario. If they managed to corner the market and then curtailed demand, they would reap some short-term benefit. Agreed.
Oh, and also China would get an R&D infrastructure built and ready so you won't be able to overtake them.
I used to have that opinion, and then I saw how quickly China built up their industrial base. I no longer have that opinion :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
As soon as someone starts harping on about Solyendra, then you know they have as little knowledge about government energy investments as they do about other thought terminating cliches, such as socialism. To the conservative mind, Solyendra is merely a thought terminating cliche. A single word that is the beginning and end of an ideological analysis.
Sure Solyendra was a disaster, but 95% of the investments were not, the money is substantially coming back, and we have new successful companies pioneering the technologies for the economy of tomorrow. The economy that is going to deliver year-on-year growth that will keep your mortgage afloat, and you solvant.
Bertrand Russell was spot on about fools and the wise. Please go learn something about the governments investments in clean energy.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Personally, I don't think we should have corporate taxes. I think we should tax capital gains (and all dividends) as ordinary income. This would more than make up for the relatively small revenue from corporate taxes, and would quash squeals of "double taxation".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
And which party would that be?
http://www.louisvuittonoutletiserve.info/
I bet that exhaust smells wonderful. I love the smell of toasted sesame oil, but a little goes a long way.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
How about the one that hasn't put a woman up on a presidential ticket? (VP or Pres)...?
Tisk, the Democratic Party had the Mondale-Ferraro ticket in '84.
Obama said the private sector couldn't afford such research, which puts the onus on government to keep it going.
The government cannot afford it even more than the private sector. Obama's teasing you with the notion that it will be funded from oil and gas funds, but I can see it going on the nation's 'credit card'
Breeder Reactors!
Social Credit would solve everything...
By the sounds of things, idea generation.
This was after being a joke, as the OP was claiming BO was using Republican ideas...
In reality, they're there to help the rich get richer. Their appeal to "different cultures" is just a matter of exploiting anyone whose knees they can make jerk, so that they'll vote against their own best interests.
Nonsense. A good many Republican economic policies can also be found in the works of eminent economists like Milton Freedman and von Mises, as being the best choices for helping the lower classes. You may disagree with those economists; there are experts in the field who do. But when a good chunk of the experts in ecominics actually recommend limited regulation and low government intervention as tending more to uplifting the poor, it's a bit malicious to claim advocates of those positions are in it to hurt the poor. Much more likely, they actually believe (some of) classic liberal economics, and are trying to implement its prescriptions.
It's this sort of ridiculous emotional dismissal which makes public discourse on politics so divisive in the US. 90% of Republicans aren't rich and likely will never be. They obviously support the party for some reason. I think the reasons of 90% of the members for the party's existence trump the other 10%!
It's almost universally better to assume your opponent is arguing in good faith. He may be (very) wrong, but just assume he really means what he says. It's both more likely to be true, and permits a more persuasive argument from you. Even if he isn't, your argument will be heard by others who may be persuaded.