Electric Car-Owners Shocked: New Study Confirms EVs Considerably Worse For Climate Than Diesel Cars

You provided the facts.

 

Absolutely correct, and yet you'll compare Germany with the Ohio valley? It was your reply...

Well, doesn't that sound familiar with the R&D for renewable energy? Seems your now comparing apples to apples... and wanting to call the latter oranges... subsidies are subsidies, they are a benefit for any of the industries in interest. And so far, the fossil fuel companies are getting their fair share from the links I provided.

If you're not going to read the links, then I'll spoon feed them to you...

"OCI is only counting direct production subsidies. As they acknowledge, that leaves out a great deal.

For one thing, it leaves out the annual $14.5 billion in consumption subsidies — things like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps lower-income residents pay their (fuel oil) heating bills. (There are better ways to help poor people, but let’s leave that aside for now.)

It also leaves out subsidies for overseas fossil fuel projects ($2.1 billion a year).

Most significantly, OCI’s analysis leaves out indirect subsidies — things like the money the US military spends to protect oil shipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health and climate impacts from burning fossil fuels. These indirect subsidies reach to the hundreds of billions, dwarfing direct subsidies — the IMF says that, globally speaking, they amount to $5.3 trillion a year. But they are controversial and very difficult to measure precisely.

Finally, OCI acknowledges that its estimates of state-level subsidies are probably low, since many states don’t report the costs of tax expenditures (i.e., tax breaks and credits to industry), so data is difficult to come by.

All of which is to say: OCI has produced about the most conservative possible estimate of the subsidies received by fossil fuels in the US. These are solely production subsidies — taxpayer money that goes directly to producing more fossil fuels.

So what’s the verdict?

Adding everything up: $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives, for a total of $20.5 billion annually in corporate welfare.

Of that total, 80 percent goes to oil and gas, 20 percent to coal. On the right, subsidies are broken down by stage of production. Extraction gets the most.

(OSI)
Notice that asterisk by remediation, which refers to the cost of cleaning up environmental messes and abandoned infrastructure left behind by fossil fuels. Shady insurance, bonding, and liability-cap policies mean that taxpayers are probably on the hook for lots more than this in the end, but it’s difficult to quantify in advance.

There are dozens and dozens of fossil fuel production subsidies — OCI’s report has a whole appendix devoted to listing them — but here they are broken down by the biggest offenders:

(OCI)
You probably can’t read that text, so here are the top six:

• Intangible drilling oil & gas deduction ($2.3 billion)
• Excess of percentage over cost depletion ($1.5 billion)
• Master Limited Partnerships tax exemption ($1.6 billion)
• Last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting ($1.7 billion)
• Lost royalties from onshore and offshore drilling ($1.2 billion)
• Low-cost leasing of coal-production in the Powder River Basin ($963 million)

(I listed six because that sixth one is the biggie for coal.)

These kinds of obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks are not widely known or debated, partially because you have to be a tax lawyer to understand them, and partially because they are simply old. The single biggest one, the intangible drilling deduction, has been around for over a century!

As subsidies age, they start to look less like subsidies. They start looking like fixed features of the landscape, like mountains or rivers, rather than choices we are making. They just look like the status quo.

How does this compare to renewable energy subsidies? In terms of permanent tax expenditures, fossil fuels beat renewables by a 7-1 margin:"

"Since 1950, the federal government has provided more than $160 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industries (see Table 1). Table 1 shows the largest tax credits provided to the oil and gas industry over the past several decades. [ii] The table also includes royalty revenues that have already been lost from Gulf of Mexico deepwater oil and gas leases signed in 1998-1999. [iii] It is estimated that these leases will cost taxpayers an additional $6.4-$9.8 billion in lost revenue over the rest of their lifetime. [iv] Moreover, the Minerals Management Service is currently being sued by the Kerr-McGee Corporation, which alleges that MMS cannot include price thresholds in any Gulf of Mexico deepwater leases from 1996-2000; as of September 2008, MMS is appealing a lower court ruling in favor of Kerr-McGee. [v] GAO estimates that this lawsuit could cost taxpayers $16 to $39 billion in lost royalty revenues.[vi]

In addition to the subsidies included in the table the oil and gas industry receives substantial profits from using the “Last-In, First-Out” inventory method, which allows companies to underestimate the value of their inventory for tax purposes. [vii] LIFO accounting is estimated to cost taxpayers over $4 billion in the next 10 years. [viii]

Table 1: Selected Historical Oil and Gas Tax Credits and Subsidies and their Value
Tax credits and subsidies Value (constant 2007 dollars)
Expensing of exploration and development costs, 1968-2007 45,300,000,000
Excess of percentage over cost depletion, 1968-2007 103,600,000,000
Exception from passive loss limitation, 1988-2007 1,400,000,000
Enhanced oil recovery tax credit, 1994-2007

3,200,000,000
Expensing of Tertiary Injectants, 1980-2000 400,000,000
Lost royalty revenues from 1998-1999 leases

1,000,000,000
Oiil and Gas Research and Development, 1950-2003

13,800,000,000
Total 168,700,000,000
Sources: Agbara, G.M., “Federal Energy Tax Incentives and Subsidies and the Current State of Biomass Fuels”, Government Accountability office, 2006; Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels. Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007. April 2008. Energy Information Administration. 12 Jun 2008


At a time when oil companies are experiencing record profits, there is no need to reward them with taxpayer handouts. In 2007, Exxon posted $40.6 billion in profits — the largest annual profit number reported by any American company ever.[ix] Exxon set a new record for quarterly profits in the third quarter of 2008 with over $14 billion in profits. [x] Other oil companies are also topping the earnings charts, with the combined profits of 30 major oil and gas companies reaching over $200 billion in 2006.[xi]

Despite this, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides half a dozen more tax breaks to the oil and gas industries, detailed in Table 2. Over the next 10 years, these tax breaks will save the oil and gas companies an additional $2.3 billion – all at taxpayers’ expense. [xii] The recently-passed $700 billion bailout package included an expansion of the tax credit for 50% expensing for certain refineries and an extension of the suspension of the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and gas produced from marginal properties. Together, these tax breaks are valued at $2.2 billion through 2013. [xiii]



Table 2: Recent Oil and Gas Subsidies
Recent Subsidies Estimated Value through 2015
Temporary 50% expensing for equipment used in the refining of liquid fuels 2,180,000,000
Amortization of all geological and geophysical expenditures over 7 years

680,000,000
Natural gas distribution pipelines treated as 15-yr property

1,020,000,000
Natural gas gathering lines as 7-year property

16,000,000
Expensing of capital costs with respect to complying with EPA sulfur regulations

100,000,000
Exempt certain prepayments for natural gas from tax-exempt bond arbitrage rules

53,000,000
Determination of small refiner exception to percentage depletion deduction

160,000,000
Extension of suspension of taxable income limit for percentage depletion allowance

124,000,000
Total 4,285,000,000"

 

Wow your on a roll today.
Siemens is second only to The Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas

 

Very good! ...and yet that was your reply... to the link provided...

Sounds a lot like renewable energy R&D... ...well, now, aren't you just comparing apples to apples and wanting to label the latter as oranges? Subsidies are subsidies, they benefit the industry of interest.

...if you're not going to read the links provided, then I'll spoon feed them to you...

"OCI is only counting direct production subsidies. As they acknowledge, that leaves out a great deal.

For one thing, it leaves out the annual $14.5 billion in consumption subsidies — things like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps lower-income residents pay their (fuel oil) heating bills. (There are better ways to help poor people, but let’s leave that aside for now.)

It also leaves out subsidies for overseas fossil fuel projects ($2.1 billion a year).

Most significantly, OCI’s analysis leaves out indirect subsidies — things like the money the US military spends to protect oil shipping routes, or the unpaid costs of health and climate impacts from burning fossil fuels. These indirect subsidies reach to the hundreds of billions, dwarfing direct subsidies — the IMF says that, globally speaking, they amount to $5.3 trillion a year. But they are controversial and very difficult to measure precisely.

Finally, OCI acknowledges that its estimates of state-level subsidies are probably low, since many states don’t report the costs of tax expenditures (i.e., tax breaks and credits to industry), so data is difficult to come by.

All of which is to say: OCI has produced about the most conservative possible estimate of the subsidies received by fossil fuels in the US. These are solely production subsidies — taxpayer money that goes directly to producing more fossil fuels.

So what’s the verdict?

Adding everything up: $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives, for a total of $20.5 billion annually in corporate welfare.

Of that total, 80 percent goes to oil and gas, 20 percent to coal. On the right, subsidies are broken down by stage of production. Extraction gets the most.

(OSI)
Notice that asterisk by remediation, which refers to the cost of cleaning up environmental messes and abandoned infrastructure left behind by fossil fuels. Shady insurance, bonding, and liability-cap policies mean that taxpayers are probably on the hook for lots more than this in the end, but it’s difficult to quantify in advance.

There are dozens and dozens of fossil fuel production subsidies — OCI’s report has a whole appendix devoted to listing them — but here they are broken down by the biggest offenders:

(OCI)
You probably can’t read that text, so here are the top six:

• Intangible drilling oil & gas deduction ($2.3 billion)
• Excess of percentage over cost depletion ($1.5 billion)
• Master Limited Partnerships tax exemption ($1.6 billion)
• Last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting ($1.7 billion)
• Lost royalties from onshore and offshore drilling ($1.2 billion)
• Low-cost leasing of coal-production in the Powder River Basin ($963 million)

(I listed six because that sixth one is the biggie for coal.)

These kinds of obscure tax loopholes and accounting tricks are not widely known or debated, partially because you have to be a tax lawyer to understand them, and partially because they are simply old. The single biggest one, the intangible drilling deduction, has been around for over a century!

As subsidies age, they start to look less like subsidies. They start looking like fixed features of the landscape, like mountains or rivers, rather than choices we are making. They just look like the status quo.

How does this compare to renewable energy subsidies? In terms of permanent tax expenditures, fossil fuels beat renewables by a 7-1 margin:
Since 1950, the federal government has provided more than $160 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industries (see Table 1). Table 1 shows the largest tax credits provided to the oil and gas industry over the past several decades. [ii] The table also includes royalty revenues that have already been lost from Gulf of Mexico deepwater oil and gas leases signed in 1998-1999. [iii] It is estimated that these leases will cost taxpayers an additional $6.4-$9.8 billion in lost revenue over the rest of their lifetime. [iv] Moreover, the Minerals Management Service is currently being sued by the Kerr-McGee Corporation, which alleges that MMS cannot include price thresholds in any Gulf of Mexico deepwater leases from 1996-2000; as of September 2008, MMS is appealing a lower court ruling in favor of Kerr-McGee. [v] GAO estimates that this lawsuit could cost taxpayers $16 to $39 billion in lost royalty revenues.[vi]

In addition to the subsidies included in the table the oil and gas industry receives substantial profits from using the “Last-In, First-Out” inventory method, which allows companies to underestimate the value of their inventory for tax purposes. [vii] LIFO accounting is estimated to cost taxpayers over $4 billion in the next 10 years. [viii]

Table 1: Selected Historical Oil and Gas Tax Credits and Subsidies and their Value
Tax credits and subsidies Value (constant 2007 dollars)
Expensing of exploration and development costs, 1968-2007 45,300,000,000
Excess of percentage over cost depletion, 1968-2007 103,600,000,000
Exception from passive loss limitation, 1988-2007 1,400,000,000
Enhanced oil recovery tax credit, 1994-2007

3,200,000,000
Expensing of Tertiary Injectants, 1980-2000 400,000,000
Lost royalty revenues from 1998-1999 leases

1,000,000,000
Oiil and Gas Research and Development, 1950-2003

13,800,000,000
Total 168,700,000,000
Sources: Agbara, G.M., “Federal Energy Tax Incentives and Subsidies and the Current State of Biomass Fuels”, Government Accountability office, 2006; Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels. Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007. April 2008. Energy Information Administration. 12 Jun 2008


At a time when oil companies are experiencing record profits, there is no need to reward them with taxpayer handouts. In 2007, Exxon posted $40.6 billion in profits — the largest annual profit number reported by any American company ever.[ix] Exxon set a new record for quarterly profits in the third quarter of 2008 with over $14 billion in profits. [x] Other oil companies are also topping the earnings charts, with the combined profits of 30 major oil and gas companies reaching over $200 billion in 2006.[xi]

Despite this, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides half a dozen more tax breaks to the oil and gas industries, detailed in Table 2. Over the next 10 years, these tax breaks will save the oil and gas companies an additional $2.3 billion – all at taxpayers’ expense. [xii] The recently-passed $700 billion bailout package included an expansion of the tax credit for 50% expensing for certain refineries and an extension of the suspension of the taxable income limit on percentage depletion for oil and gas produced from marginal properties. Together, these tax breaks are valued at $2.2 billion through 2013. [xiii]



Table 2: Recent Oil and Gas Subsidies
Recent Subsidies Estimated Value through 2015
Temporary 50% expensing for equipment used in the refining of liquid fuels 2,180,000,000
Amortization of all geological and geophysical expenditures over 7 years

680,000,000
Natural gas distribution pipelines treated as 15-yr property

1,020,000,000
Natural gas gathering lines as 7-year property

16,000,000
Expensing of capital costs with respect to complying with EPA sulfur regulations

100,000,000
Exempt certain prepayments for natural gas from tax-exempt bond arbitrage rules

53,000,000
Determination of small refiner exception to percentage depletion deduction

160,000,000
Extension of suspension of taxable income limit for percentage depletion allowance

124,000,000
Total 4,285,000,000"

 

You are kidding right.

 

Nothing from China ??

How much does the Danish government subsidize Vestas ???

 

Did you forget your statement?

AFM said: ↑
Sure they buy it. And at the same time waste their money building redundant and subsidized wind and solar installations using Chinese equipment. They are reducing their economic growth whilst increasing China’s economic growth. In Beijing that’s known as a two’fer.

 

I don't know. How much?
More than us?

 

To make everyday items, the earth is dug for raw materials and then factory processes to manufacture these goods. And with electric vehicles, they run on roads containing tar. People think they're going green but not as green as they think.

 

Real estate is a serious problem, a typical conventional plant say Turkey Point takes up about 340 acres and produces 1600 Mw which is enough to power 900K homes 24/7, FP&L's newest solar farm Babcock Solar takes up 957 acres and produces 74.5 Mw which is only enough to power 15K homes for 8 hours.

China has been dumping PV's world wide to the point a few long time players have actually shut down their production of PV's.

 

The most efficient panels now on the market are only 22% at 77 degrees and that is about the practical limit for now and don't forget as the panels warm up their efficiency drops..

 

Your math is too simple because you left out the most important factor time, static output is just a single factor what matters is MWh not Mw.

 

And brushless D.C. motors need A.C. to operate.

 

You are illiterate, right?

No, the practical limit for solar is 90%+... remember, you said that solar had reached its peak and has matured... obviously from the link provided in my post, which obviously you didn't bother to read, solar has not matured and is still only getting started... again, for your perusal... https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/11/23/all-i-want-for-christmas-is-a-90-efficient-solar-panel/

 

There is no solar pandl on the market getting 90%

 

...yet...

 

I dont disagree

But many liberals want to set government policy is if it is a fact now

We could reach 90% in 10 years or 100 years

No one knows

 

Or as they were solar ready. DC.

 

And that doesn't take into account any energy storage equipment and associated grid power lines and grid management equipment. Solar may have a future but the government morons are their own worst enemies by subsidizing inefficient and costly technology thus delaying the development of technologies which can actually compete in the open market.

Exactly. The same is happening with wind turbines.

 

We've built an infrastructure around a century old technology... now it's crumbling under its own inefficiencies and is unsustainable. ...and many of us are tired of sending our love ones off to fight wars to obtain the resources to prop it up, tired of knowing that we're producing carcinogens and heavy metal pollution when we use it, tired of giving tax breaks and subsidies to fossil fuel companies that rake in record profits, while destroying the lands and habitats these companies invade. If we have better means of producing energy, then those should be explored to their fullest and be invested in as much as we have with fossil fuels.

 

The total tax paid is the same. In the case of expensing equipment the deduction is take immediately instead of depreciated over the life of the equipment as I've said. The rest of the article is BS. Providing military security is a subsidy ?? That's ridiculous. And the article clearly states that the two tax code items have been implemented to aid small exploratory oil companies. Big oil could care less. Even adding up everything in the article amounts to a rounding error in the oil business.

Who said solar had reached it's peak ?? The problem is that the government has subsidized the wrong technology which will never be cost competitive simply because the and solar capacity must have a ~ 100% fossil/nuclear/hydro back up.

 

The US is now 100% energy independent. Thanks Trump.

Where is the grid crumbling ?? What wars have been fought over oil ?? What energy plants are exceeding EPA standards for carcinogens and heavy metals ?? What lands are being destroyed ?? Fossil fuel companies make a very low after tax profit percentage. Nice rant though.

The hockey stick of human development coincides exactly with the development of fossil fuel energy. It's immoral to attempt to limit production or implement government policies which result in higher fossil fuel energy sources.

 

Only in the lab, real world is 22%.

 

Incorrect, all D.C. motors require either an armature and brushes (inefficient) or a D.C. to 3 phase A.C. convertor to operate aka an ECM.

In the case of a brushless motor a D.C. motor cannot spin without something to switch the magnetic fields in relation to the PM rotor, simply applying D.C. to the windings would lock the PM rotor and burn up the windings.