Last December’s bipartisan tax deal included a temporary 100% write-off (known as 100% bonus depreciation) for new equipment placed in service by Dec. 31, 2011.
That tax credit occurred in 2003, 2004 and 2011. It is no longer in effect. another point is that this immediate depreciation could be used to purchase anything including manufacturing equipment, computers, etc.
Subsidies have nothing to do with the age of the company. They are there to encourage companies to design and manufacture and encourage people to purchase vehicles that emit less greenhouse gasses.
Does GM still need help with that, after all these decades?
GM has never built a vehicle like the Volt before.
Did you look at those figures? Did you notice that almost half of the investment is in Japan and China? Why is Japan investing so heavily in coal? Could it be a replacement for nuclear?
By the way the global production of coal is about $350B. The $8B/yr is only 2%.
You missed the point. That are giving the same subsidy to a Volt that they are to a Tesla. Why should the government give more money to the Tesla buyer when the same environmental benefit could be gained from buying the Volt?
Tesla receives a fraction of the subsidies the OLD fossil fuel industries
Perhaps because the economic benefit from a healthy fossil fuel industry has much more impact than a car company that produces 33,000 cars a year.
That report includes all "energy subsidies" which includes subsidies for electricity production through green technology.
Where the energy product is non-traded, like electricity, the supply cost is the price at which the domestic producer recovers costs, including a normal return to capital.
That page talks about energy subsidies which include subsidies to "green" energy production.
Where the energy product is non-traded, like electricity, the supply cost is the price at which the domestic producer recovers costs, including a normal return to capital.
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.
I suppose that they should have really called it an "artifical Isles of Langerhans", but that's pretty clumsy.
Sorry but still incorrect. The Islets of Langerhans produce all the hormones and not just insulin. Even the specific type of Islets that produces insulin produces another hormone.
The pancreas produces several hormones. The automatic insulin pump deals with only one. Therefore an automatic insulin pump is not a replacement for a pancreas. The heart moves blood and that is all. An artificial heart replaces that function. The other think is that artificial hearts are not a permanent solution. They get replaced with organic hearts.
That may not seem like a big deal to you,
I never said it was not a big deal.
It is an improvement but is not a replacement for a pancreas.
Since it does not produce it's own insulin it is not an artificial pancreas. It is an automatic insulin pump. It still has to be refilled with insulin periodically. It is an improvement but is not a replacement for a pancreas.
Perhaps you might look into what slippery slope actually means. A slippery slope fallacy argues that if A happens then B will inevitably happen. In this case your premise that requiring picture will inevitably lead to requiring DNA is the slippery slope fallacy. Pictures do not lead to DNA. By the way, we already require pictures on driver's licenses. The GP was refuting your slippery slope argument not making one.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not Toyota received R&D support from Japan is in dispute.
You missed the last part of the story
Last December’s bipartisan tax deal included a temporary 100% write-off (known as 100% bonus depreciation) for new equipment placed in service by Dec. 31, 2011.
That tax credit occurred in 2003, 2004 and 2011. It is no longer in effect. another point is that this immediate depreciation could be used to purchase anything including manufacturing equipment, computers, etc.
The Prius does get subsidies
During the Bush years, you could get a SUV subsidy for your "business"
Care to reference the actual subsidy you are talking about? Might it be a businsess purchase subsidy that could be used to buy anything?
they should have asked Toyota or Honda for help
Toyota and Honda would have helped them why?
Subsidies have nothing to do with the age of the company. They are there to encourage companies to design and manufacture and encourage people to purchase vehicles that emit less greenhouse gasses.
Does GM still need help with that, after all these decades?
GM has never built a vehicle like the Volt before.
Is the difference worth 2.5* the subsidy?
Did you look at those figures? Did you notice that almost half of the investment is in Japan and China? Why is Japan investing so heavily in coal? Could it be a replacement for nuclear?
By the way the global production of coal is about $350B. The $8B/yr is only 2%.
You missed the point. That are giving the same subsidy to a Volt that they are to a Tesla. Why should the government give more money to the Tesla buyer when the same environmental benefit could be gained from buying the Volt?
Tesla receives a fraction of the subsidies the OLD fossil fuel industries
Perhaps because the economic benefit from a healthy fossil fuel industry has much more impact than a car company that produces 33,000 cars a year.
I figure 3 they separate by source and electricity is one of the sources.
That report includes all "energy subsidies" which includes subsidies for electricity production through green technology.
Where the energy product is non-traded, like electricity, the supply cost is the price at which the domestic producer recovers costs, including a normal return to capital.
That page talks about energy subsidies which include subsidies to "green" energy production.
Where the energy product is non-traded, like electricity, the supply cost is the price at which the domestic producer recovers costs, including a normal return to capital.
Why should the government give incentives to but a more expensive car?
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 storm trooper blaster is actually a conversion of a Sterling L2A3.
while the Volt receives — on a percentage basis — 2 1/2 times greater subsidy than a Model S, and was developed on the government's dime.
Maybe that is because a Model S costs 2.4 times that of a Volt. On a per vehicle basis they are almost the same.
California, Nevada, and a handful of other states already have roadways that allow autonomous-car use.
I suppose that they should have really called it an "artifical Isles of Langerhans", but that's pretty clumsy.
Sorry but still incorrect. The Islets of Langerhans produce all the hormones and not just insulin. Even the specific type of Islets that produces insulin produces another hormone.
Beta cells producing insulin and amylin
What you call pedantic others call accurate. It is unnecessary to hype a significant advancement by over stating what it is.
The pancreas produces several hormones. The automatic insulin pump deals with only one. Therefore an automatic insulin pump is not a replacement for a pancreas. The heart moves blood and that is all. An artificial heart replaces that function. The other think is that artificial hearts are not a permanent solution. They get replaced with organic hearts.
That may not seem like a big deal to you,
I never said it was not a big deal.
It is an improvement but is not a replacement for a pancreas.
Since it does not produce it's own insulin it is not an artificial pancreas. It is an automatic insulin pump. It still has to be refilled with insulin periodically. It is an improvement but is not a replacement for a pancreas.
How about you read the thread before you reply. The poster stated we should not use signatures.
I *don't* want them to have my signature.
I was asking what he thought was an alternative. As I said, a signature is not an alternative to a signature.
A signature is not an alternative to a signature.
You missed the point. Requiring a signature does not inevitably lead to requiring DNA which is similar to your statement. Both ideas are untrue.
By the way, what is your alternative?
Perhaps you might look into what slippery slope actually means. A slippery slope fallacy argues that if A happens then B will inevitably happen. In this case your premise that requiring picture will inevitably lead to requiring DNA is the slippery slope fallacy. Pictures do not lead to DNA. By the way, we already require pictures on driver's licenses. The GP was refuting your slippery slope argument not making one.
Nothing is perfect
How about some of my DNA, hair and skin samples, and fingerprints too? Store it all on your super secure networks.
Classic meaningless slippery slope argument. By that logic we should not give banks our signature because there will eventually ask for DNA.