I would suggest the big problem is where do you fill up. Natural gas is a great fuel for fleet vehicles that already have designated fueling stations.
Mike, I think Dag’s talking about my methanol comment, not my NG comment. Regarding methanol, from what I’ve read it’s enough worse that current flex fuel systems wouldn’t be compatible. It also has lower energy per gallon than ethanol. Could it be used? Sure, but it’d need yet another infrastructure built for it, and that’s a big problem for many of these alternatives. NG and EV have the lowest requirements regarding infrastructure for moderate additions to the transportation system. Note the word ‘moderate’.
Here’s a great plot showing the ‘energy density’ of lots of different fuels. Note how low methanol is, compared to both ethanol and gasoline:
Edit - also note the extremely low ‘energy density’ for batteries. That’s a major problem in cost and weight.
Lower energy density fuels could definitely be used alone or in combination with other fuels. Regardless of how low the energy density is, miles per gallon would not be the measuring stick,…but miles per dollar. The object is to create free market competition of fuels other than petro, all usable in the same car. I think the technology is available now.
Price I could find for methanol is $1.34/gallon. Adjust that for energy content and it’s $2.85/gallon, same as gasoline (untaxed). So what’s the advantage?
So what’s the advantage ? If it’s not marketed by Exxon and the like, plenty. .If the federal govt. decides to promote alternative fuels…not necessarily methanol alone, reduced taxes would be part of the mix for these alternatve fuels. While our petro industry is presently exporting gasoline abroad to keep prices high here, I would say they need competition from what ever source.
Our government is out of money and we want to give tax breaks?
Our government is out of money and we want to give tax breaks?
Maybe if we removed the tax breaks for the oil industry we could have the money to promote alternative fuels. It’s about $4.4 BILLION annually.
Fine with me, but that’s about a penny a gallon. Those breaks were put in place to encourage domestic energy production. But I’d be happy to get rid of them. Just like I was happy when the 50 cent/gallon ethanol subsidy went away. Next, let’s get rid of the ethanol mandate.
“Our government is out of money and we want to give tax breaks?”
That’s about all either party wants to talk about.
“Maybe if we removed the tax breaks for the oil industry we could have the money to promote alternative fuels. It’s about $4.4 BILLION annually.”
That’s small change for a country as large as ours. I agree that the oil industry tax breaks should be stopped, and I also think that most all tax breaks for businesses should be stopped. Including farms. I also think the sun should set on all the Bush tax cuts, whether they are for the rich or the rest of us. What’s wrong with our elected officials? What’s wrong with usr for electing them?
I guess if $4.4 billion is bad, the $20 BILLION in annual farm subsidies is…
There is no way to move ahead without tariffs. We cannot compete for manufacturing jobs with the millions of hungry Chinese. The effort so far has been a race to the bottom for working families and they are losing the race. Lower taxes will not help. The radio gurus who tout cutting taxes have less understanding of the economy than me,
If we do nothing, the Bush tax cuts will expire. The only way they will be extended is if the Republicans win the presidency or have enough majority in the legislature to over ride a veto…isn’t likely. If we stay out of wars, the deficits will return to reality in spite of ourselves. Once that happens, a concerted effort to find other energy sources is imperative for world peace.
We have been sitting on oil dependency for many years and like other strategic commodities, we have comtinuous conflicts over it. From 911 to all related terrorism, it all reverts back to oil. We want to disquise it as one thing, our enemies another…it’s about oil !
Rod…I agree.
Higher personal income taxes on the business owner incentivizes reinvestment into the business to avoid these rates by taking deductions allowed by the IRS which promotes economic growth.
Dag - I agree with much of what you say. Just know that ‘taking deductions allowed by the IRS’ is what created those $4.4 billion in tax breaks that the oil industry gets, along with the tens of billions used by other industries. Folks need to understand those tax breaks usually are intended to encourage investment, to help reduce the oil dependency in the oil industry example.
“Investment incentives” to some are “corporate welfare” to others.
You be right “tex”…I would expect that every time a tax law is written to encourage one form of behavior, someone will hire a tax lawyer who will find a way of doing just the opposite. The sad truth is, the more money you have, the more you can avail yourself to deductions, getting higher rates of return and investing in more secure vehicles.
These are all arguments for the progressive Income tax rates. Fixed rates do nothing to balance the advantages of having larger investments initially which yield not just greater returns but greater rates of return. The fixed rate income tax proponents who have lots of money to begin with, laugh at their own “poor” supporters…better discribe as ignorant supporters.
Fixed income tax supporters are those whose math education stopped some what short of the chapter on exponential growth.
Don’t believe me ? Pretend you have a million dollars to save or invest and watch the world give you preferential treatment…everything form banking, to investments…to companionship.
As for as tax incentives for oil companies are concerned, it makes good politics to talk about them, but bet your buns when the are eliminated, much like any subsidy, you’ll see a rise at the pump.
“If we do nothing, the Bush tax cuts will expire. The only way they will be extended is if the Republicans win the presidency or have enough majority in the legislature to over ride a veto…”
President Obama has been working hard to get the Bush payroll tax cuts extended for everyone that makes less than $250,000. I hope he fails at this particular effort. It’s time for the sun to set on those and other tax cuts. Maybe we could pay for the services we demand then.
Actually, what we need to do is decide what government services we really want and then fund them. But decide what is truly important first. All this talk about tax cuts without putting them in the context of services that would be lost is not productive.
I hear what you are saying Jt…but with wealth inequality as it exists today, a rollback is necessary. There was a day you know when the upper personal income rates were 90%. That may seen a lot, but the big time deductions meant business owners, wealth manipulators and their managers never paid directly as much as most for both travel and living expenses and recreation was always a “job” opportunity. They did quite well. At high tax rates, reinvestment is encouraged.
My neighbor is successful business owner. I doubt he has to pay personal income taxes as I on the money he grosses that he spends for all his vehicles used to drive back and forth from his home office to places of business, which just happen to be next to his place on the lake with all sorts of toys along with his trips to his 6 condos in Florida near his business ventures there. Many of my neighbors live better than I and pay less in personal income taxes than many wage earners, including myself and some who work for them. Taxes instead, find their way into the govt. coffers by way of their employees wages and their corporate taxes.
When I worked regular jobs, I never got paid with stock options, trusts and dividends, thus avoiding higher personal income tax rates. Stick it to the daily wage earner days has to be reversed somewhat. I’m tired of hearing how the upper 10 % pays more then everyone else in taxes…heck, they have nearly the combined wealth of everyone else made on the backs of regular wage earners. Tax codes should change as the need arises…this is one need I favor.
When I worked regular jobs, I never got paid with stock options, trusts and dividends, thus avoiding higher personal income tax rates.
Most executives in large corporations get paid in stock options. And many people think this is good because it SOUNDS like their pay is tied to how well the company is doing…and it’s NOT. Many CEO’s are guaranteed a certain amount of pay…Let’s use $20M for the sake of argument. If the stock is selling at $10/share then the CEO will be issued 2 million shares for his $20M salary. If the stock drops to $5/share then he’s issued 4 million shares. In either case at the end of the year he gets his $20M…Doesn’t matter if the stock goes up or down…he still gets his $20M.
Guess who gets skewed by this practice…probably the wage earner whose retirement fund is vested partly in this same company. When the stock falls, and the economy stagnates, the wealthly get not only a gurantee but may actually get a raise in real dollars. It has to come from somewhere…
…I got a great idea…let’s let social security also support these tax advantaged money manipulators by allowing the average wage earner to invest his in the same businesses.
Another great idea that keeps the conservative wage earning supporters voting AGAINST their own self interest. And lets gloss it over by hijacking ligitimate debates on important issues with divisive slogans as part of a political agenda when nearly all of these money hykackers have the same belief system in private on these issues as the most devout liberal.
Makes you want to take a shower just thinking about it. The guy with the ugly hair do comes to mind.
Another great idea that keeps the conservative wage earning supporters voting AGAINST their own self interest.
This conservative wage earning Fox News Junkie I know at the place I work out at…Was complaining about how higher wage taxes are driving companies to move off-shore. I asked how this was causing companies to move over-seas…“Well companies are paying these taxes.” He’s convinced that payroll taxes are paid for by companies. He couldn’t understand that when he gets paid $15/hr that his $3 in tax is paid by HIM…and NOT his company. They only distribute the tax…they DON’T pay the tax.