America First Energy Policy

[airdvr 210]

gowlerk

***+1
"Nevada has agreed to provide Tesla with $1.3 billion in incentives to help build a massive battery factory near Reno."

I must have missed the report of Pennsylvania providing Range Resources with $1.3 billion to develop Marcellus shale gas.

Here is a more comprehensive story about Elon Musk subsidies.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

The man is visionary, and a force. I'm reasonable sure he is sincere, and that his efforts will advance society. But his companies could easily fail if government policies change. I would not consider buying stock in any of them.

Wow! So he's visionary, a force, and will advance society but you won't buy his stock? So the government is propping up his company.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[gowlerk 2,277]

I can read. But I get a little impatient and annoyed when it gets down to name calling. The douche business started with this:

Quote

The benefactors of this set up are Tesla, it's stockholders, and the over-privileged douche bags who buy the car. If you can afford a $100K automobile you don't need $7,500 from the government.

I think. I'm not going to discuss douchyness anymore though. I will talk about subsidies and thier merits and drawbacks.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[gowlerk 2,277]

Quote

Wow! So he's visionary, a force, and will advance society but you won't buy his stock? So the government is propping up his company.

yes, yes, no, and yes

I am a not a rich man. I make conservative investment decisions. I like my oil stocks because I'm addicted to the dividends. But I am becoming somewhat wary that they are getting past their prime.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[brenthutch 444]

If you want to go bat shit crazy speculative, invest in some Tesla and Solar City now that they will soon be removed from the government teat.

[gowlerk 2,277]

brenthutch

If you want to go bat shit crazy speculative, invest in some Tesla and Solar City now that they will soon be removed from the government teat.

I'd rather wait to see if that happens. If it does the stock will tank. That would be the time to buy. Right after a big setback when the price is low. Buy low, sell high.

I bought my BP stock a few weeks after the disaster in the Gulf. It was very heavily discounted at the time. It bottomed around $25 or so. I got it for $27. Before the accident it was over $100

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Royreader8812 0]

Tesla has not reported a profit in its 10 years because of the massive growth it has undergone.

I don't think tesla owners really need to take the subsudies, nor were the subsidies designed for them. But entitlement is entitlement and why wouldn't you take it.

These entitlements are much like Tesla giving its early adopters free supercharger use for the lifetime of the vehicle. It is an incentive and a reward for being early adopters.

It is safe to say Tesla is not going anywhere now, did not intend on reporting profits and paying corporate tax in its first decade and will be very profitable with a good market share all thing considered within another decade.

Now compare that to the ROI on a coal/nuclear/gas powered plant in the current climate.

Comparing the profits and tax obligations of well established fossil fuel industry leaders and newly established markets such as solar and EV's is patently stupid.

[brenthutch 444]

Apparently you hate math, because my numbers are patently true. Have fun with your magical thinking, and say hi to the unicorns for me.

[Phil1111 1,183]

Royreader8812

Tesla has not reported a profit in its 10 years because of the massive growth it has undergone.

I don't think Tesla owners really need to take the subsidies, nor were the subsidies designed for them. But entitlement is entitlement and why wouldn't you take it.

These entitlements are much like Tesla giving its early adopters free supercharger use for the lifetime of the vehicle. It is an incentive and a reward for being early adopters.

It is safe to say Tesla is not going anywhere now, did not intend on reporting profits and paying corporate tax in its first decade and will be very profitable with a good market share all thing considered within another decade.

Now compare that to the ROI on a coal/nuclear/gas powered plant in the current climate.

Comparing the profits and tax obligations of well established fossil fuel industry leaders and newly established markets such as solar and EV's is patently stupid.

Someone has hi-jacked this members account! Moderators, I demand an investigation!! A post that's insightful, absent of international politics. Or pro-Putin, anti-west bias.

Substantially I agree with what you've said. Electric car subsidies are against everything brenthutch lives and breaths for. In general I'm against subsidies. But using the example of Tesla and the supportive "green" business Elon Musk has in the Solar City purchase. Subsidies bring about research, "guinea pig" lab testing of electric vehicles, batteries, etc. All associated with the expense of being a "early adopter".

These subsidies arise of a need to move urban mobility away from gas/oil fueled owner driven vehicles to the future. A EU style future of cleaner energy in the transportation sector. The US appears to be stepping away from the "Paris Accord" which even China has agreed to. trump believes that global warming is a Chinese driven hoax.

" China has rejected Donald Trump’s claims that climate change is a Chinese hoax, urging the US president-elect to take a “smart decision” over his country’s commitment to the fight against global warming."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/climate-change-a-chinese-plot-beijing-gives-donald-trump-a-history-lesson
Furthermore China has recently announced a 1/3 Trillion dollar further push into renewable s. Primarily wind & solar.
http://www.newsweek.com/china-invest-360-billion-green-energy-2020-reduce-pollution-538844

China and the EU are both on the right track. But so is California.
"While Donald Trump was being inaugurated as the 45th president, California was busy unveiling its new strategy to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030 from 1990 levels. The move is in stark contrast to Trump’s positions on the environment and one that is bound to set off a debate over states rights.

California has long been on the cutting edge of environmental initiatives, having first enacted a law to cut carbon in 2006 — a ruling that has required it to review and reset its progress every five years. In the early years, the goal was to cut heat-trapping emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. "
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/01/21/california-undercuts-trumps-debut-with-aggressive-carbon-cutting-plan/#5983fb90422b

When China, for crying out loud CHINA goes green, when "US investor Warren Buffett has been all over wind energy development in Iowa, and his MidAmerican Energy company has just one-upped itself with a new plan called Wind XI. If approved, the new $3.6 billion wind development initiative would enable MidAmerican to provide its Iowa customers with a grid mix that includes 85 percent wind energy, up from an already impressive current level of 47 percent"
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/15/buffett-stakes-3-6-billion-on-massive-wind-xi-project-in-iowa/

The concepts of turning back the clock on the push of environmentalism from someone like trump. Is like a 10 pound rock going under the treads of a D-8 cat. After the tracks roll on the rock is but a hard spot in the dirt totally obscured from view.
Just as trumps views will vanish from the landscape 10-15 years from now. Sort of like a bad meal at a cheap diner on a otherwise great road trip.

[kallend 2,150]

brenthutch

*** roads paid for by "big truck" drivers.

Road damage per axle is proportional to the cube of axle weight.

Big trucks are grossly UNDER taxed for the amount of road damage they cause.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Phil,

Quote

Electric car subsidies are . . .

Anyone who claims themselves, their wife, and their children when they file their taxes are getting a subsidy from the federal gov't.

It's all about whose ox is getting gored.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,590]

kallend

****** roads paid for by "big truck" drivers.

Road damage per axle is proportional to the cube of axle weight.

Big trucks are grossly UNDER taxed for the amount of road damage they cause.
From "Understanding Road Wear and its Causes"
by Philip A. Viton
January 26, 2012

The lower right quadrant sums it up.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[airdvr 210]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Phil,

Quote

Electric car subsidies are . . .

Anyone who claims themselves, their wife, and their children when they file their taxes are getting a subsidy from the federal gov't.

It's all about whose ox is getting gored.

Jerry Baumchen

You're confusing subsidy with deduction.

sub·si·dy
ˈsəbsədē/
noun
1.
a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
2.
historical
a parliamentary grant to the sovereign for state needs.

deduct
[dih-duhkt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object)
1.
to take away, as from a sum or amount:
Once you deduct your expenses, there is nothing left.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

****** roads paid for by "big truck" drivers.

Road damage per axle is proportional to the cube of axle weight.

Big trucks are grossly UNDER taxed for the amount of road damage they cause.

Ford F-150 4040lbs
Tesla model S 4608lbs

You were saying?

[Phil1111 1,183]

I don't know about that. My GMC 2500 4x4 extended cab v-8 weighs about 5400 empty. It doesn't have many options.

Most heavy trucks start at tandems with payloads, not GVW, payloads at 26-28000 lbs. GVW at 70,000 not including trailers.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Phil1111

I don't know about that. My GMC 2500 4x4 extended cab v-8 weighs about 5400 empty. It doesn't have many options.

Most heavy trucks start at tandems with payloads, not GVW, payloads at 26-28000 lbs. GVW at 70,000 not including trailers.

Close, but not quite.

"GVW" is Gross Vehicle Weight. How much it weighs in total. Vehicle (tractor & trailer), cargo, fuel, driver, and equipment on board. Everything.
Under normal conditions, max legal is 80,000 pounds.

In general, an empty tractor trailer (dry van) goes 32k to 34k empty. Refrigerated trailers go 1000 to 1500 pounds more.

So, even empty, a semi goes around 6 times more than a pickup.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Phil1111 1,183]

I'm going by my brothers freightliner. Its got 48 rear and 20 front. It never sees a scale...

[gowlerk 2,277]

Standard US Interstate weight configuration is 80,000 lbs on 5 axles. There are a lot of states that allow more in different setups, but that is the national standard. You could argue that they don't pay enough tax for the damage they cause, but that is pointless. The goods that you consume have to get to you somehow. And you will pay for the roads like everyone else one way or another.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Royreader8812 0]

You know why China and California are so positive about renewables energy... because they are choking with pollution.

While I am a huge fan of renewables I strongly opposed carbon tax because carbon in itself is essential to life.

Pollution tax would make more sense but hey, what do I know as a carbon based life form.

Making bureaucrats rich doesn't save the environment, making water and air clean does.

The shift to renewables has passed the point of return.

EV's had a good start in the 90's but died of infant mortality from progressive laws. While California meaned well by bpassing legislation requiring a certain percentage of vehicles sold in the state to be emission free writhin a certain time frame... While the EV1 was still in development. In doing so, they inadvertently fucked the US EV industry prompting the vehicle companies to destroy the project. Why? Because they would have to lose money to reach this target. Idiots.

Had they have just let nature take its course, Detroit may still be booming, the US EV market thriving...

Who killed the electric car? California's legislative bureaucrats did.

So carbon tax can go suck the big fat one, and China and California do whatever they do out of desperation, not mortality.

Thanks to Elon Musk, his vision has prompted the industry once again and in turn has got the major players in on the action. Musk can't take all the credit through, Nissan and Toyota are also at the forefront of the technology. Along with the associated electronics companies.

Fuck legislation, the market is well on its way to sorting this out on its own.

[Phil1111 1,183]

gowlerk

Standard US Interstate weight configuration is 80,000 lbs on 5 axles. There are a lot of states that allow more in different setups, but that is the national standard. You could argue that they don't pay enough tax for the damage they cause, but that is pointless. The goods that you consume have to get to you somehow. And you will pay for the roads like everyone else one way or another.

Yes, my brothers in-laws have a b train and its licensed to 56,500 kg or just under 118,000 lbs. or 39 Prius cars. Michigan allows up to 164,000 lb (55 Prius cars). But different bridges, roads have other restrictions. Thats assuming enough axels, correct axel combinations, tire widths, etc.

The heaviest biggest truck that I've personally ever driven is a tandem at about 70,000 lbs. The biggest factor for road damage is weight, speed and moisture if its not paved.

[brenthutch 444]

Royreader8812

Making bureaucrats rich doesn't save the environment, making water and air clean does.

EV's had a good start in the 90's but died of infant mortality from progressive laws. While California meaned well by bpassing legislation requiring a certain percentage of vehicles sold in the state to be emission free writhin a certain time frame... While the EV1 was still in development. In doing so, they inadvertently fucked the US EV industry prompting the vehicle companies to destroy the project. Why? Because they would have to lose money to reach this target. Idiots.

Had they have just let nature take its course, Detroit may still be booming, the US EV market thriving...

Who killed the electric car? California's legislative bureaucrats did.

Fuck legislation, the market is well on its way to sitting this out on its own.

+1

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Exxon can't have very good tax breaks when they pay more than $30 billion a year in corporate income tax.

What kind of bullshit reasoning is that?

If Exxon without tax breaks would have to pay $690 billion in income tax and now they pay $30 billion, you would argue they get shitty tax breaks because they pay $30 billion?

[rehmwa 2]

airdvr

You're confusing subsidy with deduction.

Let's say the government takes a set amount of money from everybody (think flat fee)

ANY adjustment, that isn't applied to everyone, to that (subsidy, deduction, special tax, penalty, progressive/regressive rate structures, fees, etc etc etc) changes that amount - which is a net transfer between those that get that adjustment and those that don't. (whether you agree with the adjustments or not, whether you think they are a good thing or a bad, etc etc)

so playing dictionary with Jerry really ignores the point he's making

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,150]

brenthutch

********* roads paid for by "big truck" drivers.

Road damage per axle is proportional to the cube of axle weight.

Big trucks are grossly UNDER taxed for the amount of road damage they cause.

Ford F-150 4040lbs
Tesla model S 4608lbs

You were saying?

If you think a F-150 is "big" as trucks go, your girl friend/wife must be sorely disappointed.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>Persons (which of course include corporations) who take public money and then
>badmouth the entities which provide that money, do have a certain amount of
>doucheyness.

OK. So Exxon, Tesla, Duke Energy, General Motors and Southern Company coal have a certain amount of "doucheyness." Most companies do.

> Tesla, Leaf and Volt drivers travel on the roads paid for by "big truck" drivers

And big truck drivers enjoy lower fuel prices, paid for (in part) by the purchasers of more efficient vehicles.

> A classic example of makers vs. takers (with a tincture of douche).

Yep.

Example of makers - the people who build Teslas, and Falcons, and Boeings, and Focuses

Example of takers - the people who just want cheap gas

[Phil1111 1,183]

billvon

Example of takers - the people who just want cheap gas

Norway gas $6.75 a gallon.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/221368/gas-prices-around-the-world/

"The export value of crude oil and natural gas in 2016 was about NOK 350 billion. This amounts to approximately 47 % of the total value of Norway’s exports of goods. "
http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/production-and-exports/exports-of-oil-and-gas/

" in 1981 during the early stages of a North Sea oil boom that benefited both Norway and Britain. Norway decided that it would set up a sovereign wealth fund – a piggy bank for the people – so future generations would reap the benefits of the unexpected bonanza. Britain did not.

The result is that Norway has amassed $885bn (£727bn) – easily enough to cope with the cost of looking after a population of 5 million as it ages. "
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/15/land-reforms-and-a-sovereign-fund-could-secure-uks-long-term-future

Norway. The best example of a good worldwide citizen that protects the environment.