"I absolutely do believe that the administration has some influence (not control) over energy prices by their policies. The Canadian pipeline, offshore drilling, hydrofracking, import tariffs, release of reserves, and other policy decisions all affect energy prices.
Most of what you mention must include laws enacted by Congress. The President can jawbone in favor of legislation and sign it, but it is enacted by Congress.
And on the subject of EVs in and out of NYC during the early years: Where were there roads that cars could actually run on outside NYC? EVs were and are practical city vehicles, but they don’t make sense yet outside cities yet. Maybe in another 10 years the energy density of batteries and growth of charging stations might allow many of us to drive EVs on a regular basis.
$4 billion/year divided by 18 million barrels per day = $0.015 per gallon. Fine with me to get rid of it, just don’t kid yourself that it’s a huge subsidy, or that getting rid of it solves anything.
As for EVs, we’re pouring money into them, for very little (eventual) benefit. More harm, actually, if your electricity comes from coal:
Fine with me to get rid of it, just don't kid yourself that it's a huge subsidy
And that’s the kind of thinking in congress that got us in the mess we’re in…$4 BILLION isn’t that much.
I wonder what the EV technology would be like if we put that much mony into that technology.
I NEVER said EV didn’t have it’s problems. I understand exactly where electricity comes from…And I agree if you charge up your Tesla from a coal fired plant it’s probably hurting the
environment more then a 1971 Caddy that burns a quart of oil every 500 miles. Still doesn’t make it right to give one of the the most profitable companies the world has ever seen…BILLIONS of dollars every year.
But there are many other technologies on the horizon…
Maybe a reverse hybrid system will have to be implemented. In many of the present hybrids, the electric motor assists the internal combustion engine. Some of the energy for the systme is from the regenerative braking where the electric motor serves as a generator and puts power back into the battery. Now the electric motor is so efficient that it generates very little heat. Most of us wimps really like heat in the car in the winter and the heat presesntly comes from a small radiator which receives its hot water from the internal combustion engine. Now, if an electric motor supplies the power, we need to get heat from somewhere. Electric resistance heat from the battery takes a lot of energy. The Citicar, an electric car manufactured in the late 1970s had an onboard propane heater. However, this isn’t really very efficeint. We might as well be getting some energy out of the fuel. Therefore, we will have an internal combustion engine to generate heat and mechanical energy which will be used to assist the electric motor. We then have a reverse hybrid system where instead of the electric motor assisting the internal combustion engine, the internal combustion engine assists the electric motor.
“Still doesn’t make it right to give one of the the most profitable companies the world has ever seen…BILLIONS of dollars every year”
Nonsense, many other companies are FAR more profitable than the energy companies. Look at computers/software: Apple or Microsoft would fire their management if that had the low profitability of an energy company.
When I get the funds (which might be never) I want to convert my car to electric.
I’m wildly guessing it would cost less than $15K. I love my car and don’t mind only using it ‘locally’. I would gladly rent a car for ‘out of town’ use.
“We then have a reverse hybrid system where instead of the electric motor assisting the internal combustion engine, the internal combustion engine assists the electric motor.”
Look at computers/software: Apple or Microsoft would fire their management if that had the low profitability of an energy company.
And they’re NOT getting BILLIONS of dollars from the Government are they??
And I suggest you do your research…There are only a handful of companies more profitable then the oil companies. Most don’t even come close…#1 in profit in 2012 is Exxon Mobile…with a profit of $41 BILLION… Take a look at the list below…most are oil companies…
So a $100 billion company that has a $4 billion profit is more ‘profitable’ than a $2 billion company with $1 billion profit? Nonsense.
I would HOPE a bigger company makes more profit in absolute terms. Shouldn’t be any other way, right?
Here’s a article with a table of profitability (% of sales) by industry:
The summary:
"As the table below shows, the Integrated Oil and Gas industry made an average profit of 6.2 cents per dollar of sales, which ranks #114 out of 215 industries by profit margin, and puts oil companies right in the middle of industries by profitability. "
The oil and gas industry made 6.2 cents per dollar of sales, but oil and gas had a lot of sales. My dad went to work as a salesman for Marshall Fields in Chicago during the depression. His pay was strictly commision. He was given a choice of selling men’s underware or furniture. He chose to sell underwear, because everyone needs that, but you can live without furniture. I’m sure that he probably only earned a few cents on each sale, but it was more profitable than trying to sell furniture with a much larger commission on each item.
Grocery stores also depend on a high volume with a low percentage on each dollar of sales. I think profits based on volume of sales with a low margin on each unit is different than a high markup but low volume of sales.
I say go with the Volt. If I had the money I would.
The car looks cool and even with the gas engine doing the charging it gets great mileage.
We had a '97 Geo Metro. 3cyl and the 5 speed. It usually got 45mpg highway. The best it did was 55mpg. It wouldn’t win a race against a slug but it wasn’t designed to. I don’t understand why the car companies can’t look behind themselves to see what really worked best.
Nash Metropolitan.
Geo Metro/Suzuki Swift.
The original Honda Civic.
The REAL Mini’s.
Basic cars that got great mileage.
The original electric cars from years ago got the same range that the new ones do.
We have all this technology and nothing to show for it. That’s just sad.
I forgot to add… re: lithium battery costs…
The problem is one of lithium supplies.
China controls the worlds major sources. Guess what they are NOT sharing much of…
Guess what was found in Afghanistan…
So a $100 billion company that has a $4 billion profit is more 'profitable' than a $2 billion company with $1 billion profit? Nonsense.
I knew you’d take that view…that’s just absurd…We’re NOT talking about how much PROFIT a company makes…but how much of OUR money is being give to them…Doesn’t matter if they make 10% profit or 90% profit…What matters is the amount…I know you’re from Texas and have a direct interest in the Corporate welfare…but it’s attitude like that…that got us in this mess…ME.ME. ME…How about looking at what’s best for the country…a not your self interest.
So profit is, what, 'evil'? Not permitted? Here's a name for a company that doesn't make a profit:
I know you’re desperate to win this argument…
But I NEVER said anything about profit is bad.
So you’re telling me that Exxon/Mobil who had a record profit of $46 BILLION DOLLARS. is going to go bankrupt if the tax payers don’t give them BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies??? That’s what you’re saying…
Weak…very Weak…You conservatives are all alike…Corporate welfare - “Good”. Too bad you don’t believe in free enterprise.
Mike, you know I’ve said repeatedly that the “subsidies” (tax deductions acutally, just like EVERY other company in the US gets) could go away and I’d be fine with that, as long as it was applied equally to ALL industries. Oil companies are no more or less profitable than other industries, they’re just the target.
From a CNN article last year: “Exxon’s average effective U.S. income tax rate over the last six years is about 29%, according to the firm’s security filings and an interview with a top Exxon tax lawyer. It’s one of the highest rates for any industry.”
So I call BS on the witch hunt for the energy companies. Change the overall tax structure, fine, but I’ve provided nothing but facts that show the oil and gas industry is no more profitable that other industries, much less than many, and pay substantial US taxes.
Corporations paid $191 billion in taxes in 2010, and the average corporate tax rate was about 14%. It was about double that 40 years ago, so had none of those tax benefits been enacted coporations might pay 28%, or $191 billion more. The $4 billion of that assigned to the oil and gas industry is, again, a small fraction of the total. That’s my point, there are MANY profitable industries in the US making use of many billions in tax benefits. To repeatedly put the oil industry out there as the President’s target (he does it all the time) is just misleading. Makes folks feel good, I guess.
“I will always take the $4B profit over the $1B profit, regardless of how many Bs it takes.”
If you spend $100 billion and make $1 billion, you are better off than on organization that spends $1 million and makes $1 billion? Please explain how that works.
Change the overall tax structure, fine, but I've provided nothing but facts that show the oil and gas industry is no more profitable that other industries, much less than many, and pay substantial US taxes.
In your mind you have…sorry…but Exxon has had record profits the past few years…Deal with it.