SubsidyEye's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/26003/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/178787-you-say-fossil-fuels-i-say-future-fuels?source=feed#comment-812015 812015
Says who? The main taxes levied on fossil fuels are either royalties (which are not taxes but payments to owners of natural resources), income tax (which all companies are supposed to pay, yet oil and gas companies in particular enjoy many breaks in the ones they are supposed to pay), and excise taxes. Those excise taxes, in the United States at least, are essentially road user fees, and are also levied on biofuels. Off-road vehicles, like farm tractors, are usually exempt from such taxes. General aviation pays a tax, but that is similarly earmarked to cover the cost of providing infrastructure. And jet fuel is hardly taxed at all.

So what in the world are you talking about?]]> Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:09:26 -0500
Says who? The main taxes levied on fossil fuels are either royalties (which are not taxes but payments to owners of natural resources), income tax (which all companies are supposed to pay, yet oil and gas companies in particular enjoy many breaks in the ones they are supposed to pay), and excise taxes. Those excise taxes, in the United States at least, are essentially road user fees, and are also levied on biofuels. Off-road vehicles, like farm tractors, are usually exempt from such taxes. General aviation pays a tax, but that is similarly earmarked to cover the cost of providing infrastructure. And jet fuel is hardly taxed at all.

So what in the world are you talking about?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177960-will-general-electric-s-wind-farm-be-worth-the-taxpayers-investment?source=feed#comment-806058 806058
It's called Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures:

wto.org/english/docs_e...

which states:

"the following subsidies, within the meaning of Article 1, shall be prohibited: ... (b) subsidies contingent, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods."

The reason, I suspect, that Brazil gets away with such a stipulation is that it applies only to investments by the state-owned oil company, Petrobas. In that case, the measure falls under the plurilateral Agreement on Government Procurement, to which Brazil in any case is not a party:

wto.org/english/docs_e...

So, unless you want to nationalize the U.S. electric utilities, the option of imposing local-content obligations on wind projects is not a legal one.]]> Tue, 15 Dec 2009 03:11:53 -0500
It's called Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures:

wto.org/english/docs_e...

which states:

"the following subsidies, within the meaning of Article 1, shall be prohibited: ... (b) subsidies contingent, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods."

The reason, I suspect, that Brazil gets away with such a stipulation is that it applies only to investments by the state-owned oil company, Petrobas. In that case, the measure falls under the plurilateral Agreement on Government Procurement, to which Brazil in any case is not a party:

wto.org/english/docs_e...

So, unless you want to nationalize the U.S. electric utilities, the option of imposing local-content obligations on wind projects is not a legal one.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177960-will-general-electric-s-wind-farm-be-worth-the-taxpayers-investment?source=feed#comment-805146 805146 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:53:37 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174898-whatever-happened-to-those-ethanol-companies?source=feed#comment-775788 775788
Yes, Google it, but please read the articles that are not trying to promote a fantasy. "They" are not flying airplanes on it, Japan Air Lines have tested one or two airplanes with it, as has the military. The stuff works well. Pity that it costs more than $20 per gallon (some say as high as $90 per gallon) to produce.]]> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:04:35 -0500
Yes, Google it, but please read the articles that are not trying to promote a fantasy. "They" are not flying airplanes on it, Japan Air Lines have tested one or two airplanes with it, as has the military. The stuff works well. Pity that it costs more than $20 per gallon (some say as high as $90 per gallon) to produce.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174787-fuel-systems-solutions-a-winner-in-the-alternative-fuels-industry?source=feed#comment-774809 774809
Tell that to the politicians, who have pursued a variant of (2), which is: subsidize and mandate hopelessly expensive and non-scalable biofuels, thus lulling drivers into a false hope that the Government has found a solution that will keep blended gasoline and diesel fuels available at the pump at constant or even declining prices. If anybody thinks that the United States has abandoned its policies to support first-generation biofuels, they should have another think coming. For example, there are now bills before the House and Senate to extend the $1/gallon subsidy for biodiesel for another five years:

www.dtnethanolcenter.c...

Why? Biodiesel is NEVER going to be competitive with petroleum diesel. Even the industry admits that its very existence is dependent on the continuation of this subsidy.]]> Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:00:29 -0500
Tell that to the politicians, who have pursued a variant of (2), which is: subsidize and mandate hopelessly expensive and non-scalable biofuels, thus lulling drivers into a false hope that the Government has found a solution that will keep blended gasoline and diesel fuels available at the pump at constant or even declining prices. If anybody thinks that the United States has abandoned its policies to support first-generation biofuels, they should have another think coming. For example, there are now bills before the House and Senate to extend the $1/gallon subsidy for biodiesel for another five years:

www.dtnethanolcenter.c...

Why? Biodiesel is NEVER going to be competitive with petroleum diesel. Even the industry admits that its very existence is dependent on the continuation of this subsidy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172973-algae-biofuels-have-a-promising-future?source=feed#comment-760703 760703 Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:41:28 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/173029-solar-industry-lobbies-senate-for-manufacturing-tax-credit-cash-grant?source=feed#comment-760003 760003
Agreed: eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels. But it is unlikely that cutting those subsidies would be sufficient to flip the basic market equation in favor of renewable energy. For one, per unit of energy, the subsidies to fossil fuels in the United States are much, much smaller than the cost gap between fossil fuels and renewable energy. (It is a different story in countries that heavily subsidize or regulate the end-user prices of energy.) Second, the prices of fossil fuels sold in the United States are already pegged to international prices. The reduction in domestic production that would result from the elimination of subsidies to fossil fuels would not be enough to substantially raise the world prices for coal and oil (and, by extension, natural gas) and hence we shouldn't expect domestic prices to rise all that much.

What WOULD make a difference would be to both eliminate subsidies AND raise taxes on fossil fuels. Whether tied to carbon or to other pollutants (note: coal-fired power plants already pay for SO2-emission permits), raising taxes on fuels closer to those already imposed even by poorer countries, like Turkey (not to mention Australia, Japan and European countries), could make a big difference. So would reducing corporate and private income taxes (which should be part of any package of increasing fuel taxes).

Put that altogether, and some forms of renewable energy might be able to compete with fossil fuels. But there will be many others -- e.g., algae-based biodiesel or bio-jet -- that will remain much more expensive for many years to come.]]> Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:16:14 -0500
Agreed: eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels. But it is unlikely that cutting those subsidies would be sufficient to flip the basic market equation in favor of renewable energy. For one, per unit of energy, the subsidies to fossil fuels in the United States are much, much smaller than the cost gap between fossil fuels and renewable energy. (It is a different story in countries that heavily subsidize or regulate the end-user prices of energy.) Second, the prices of fossil fuels sold in the United States are already pegged to international prices. The reduction in domestic production that would result from the elimination of subsidies to fossil fuels would not be enough to substantially raise the world prices for coal and oil (and, by extension, natural gas) and hence we shouldn't expect domestic prices to rise all that much.

What WOULD make a difference would be to both eliminate subsidies AND raise taxes on fossil fuels. Whether tied to carbon or to other pollutants (note: coal-fired power plants already pay for SO2-emission permits), raising taxes on fuels closer to those already imposed even by poorer countries, like Turkey (not to mention Australia, Japan and European countries), could make a big difference. So would reducing corporate and private income taxes (which should be part of any package of increasing fuel taxes).

Put that altogether, and some forms of renewable energy might be able to compete with fossil fuels. But there will be many others -- e.g., algae-based biodiesel or bio-jet -- that will remain much more expensive for many years to come.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172973-algae-biofuels-have-a-promising-future?source=feed#comment-759904 759904
Anybody who is curious about algal energy should read through Robert Rapier's "R-squared blog" articles on the topic:

i-r-squared.blogspot.c...

i-r-squared.blogspot.c...

Rapier knows what he is talking about. But,even more so, the people in the industry that he interviews know what they are talking about.

It would be nice if algae could live up to its hype. But that is 99% of what one reads about it these days: hype.]]> Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:18:00 -0500
Anybody who is curious about algal energy should read through Robert Rapier's "R-squared blog" articles on the topic:

i-r-squared.blogspot.c...

i-r-squared.blogspot.c...

Rapier knows what he is talking about. But,even more so, the people in the industry that he interviews know what they are talking about.

It would be nice if algae could live up to its hype. But that is 99% of what one reads about it these days: hype.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172422-don-t-throw-biofuels-out-with-the-bathwater?source=feed#comment-754853 754853
The only time that corn ethanol has been truly profitable was during a brief period when corn prices were low (thanks to the reduced ability to export through Gulf ports, following Hurricane Katrina, and the phase out of MTB, which forced blenders to scramble for supplies of ethanol at any price. History has shown that as gasoline prices rise, so do the prices of feedstocks. Even Al Gore is publicly regretting pushing corn ethanol as a "solution". You should, too, Jerry DD.

As for biodiesel, that which is based on vegetable oils has NEVER been profitable without the blenders credit. The global supply of vegetable oils is a drop in the bucket compared with the global supply of petroleum. As soon as oil prices rise, demand for vegetable oils for all uses drives the price up. The more it is subsidized, the higher the price goes -- harming consumers of those oils as food, which include large numbers of people who do not own vehicles in southern and south-eastern Asia.


"Most of the bad press, info is from the very good oil propaganda machine most everyone has bought hook, line and sinker."

Man, you really do believe that, don't you Jerry DD? So, we are supposed to believe that none of the proponents of biofuels are at all interested by the profit motive, but that all critics of first-generation biofuels, and of biofuel policies, are zombies whose brains have been brainwashed by Big Oil? Get up from your computer terminal, Jerry DD, and actually talk with those critics. You will find that most have arrived at their opinions through reasoned analysis and hard facts that have nothing to do with the propaganda of Big Oil.]]> Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:24:14 -0500
The only time that corn ethanol has been truly profitable was during a brief period when corn prices were low (thanks to the reduced ability to export through Gulf ports, following Hurricane Katrina, and the phase out of MTB, which forced blenders to scramble for supplies of ethanol at any price. History has shown that as gasoline prices rise, so do the prices of feedstocks. Even Al Gore is publicly regretting pushing corn ethanol as a "solution". You should, too, Jerry DD.

As for biodiesel, that which is based on vegetable oils has NEVER been profitable without the blenders credit. The global supply of vegetable oils is a drop in the bucket compared with the global supply of petroleum. As soon as oil prices rise, demand for vegetable oils for all uses drives the price up. The more it is subsidized, the higher the price goes -- harming consumers of those oils as food, which include large numbers of people who do not own vehicles in southern and south-eastern Asia.


"Most of the bad press, info is from the very good oil propaganda machine most everyone has bought hook, line and sinker."

Man, you really do believe that, don't you Jerry DD? So, we are supposed to believe that none of the proponents of biofuels are at all interested by the profit motive, but that all critics of first-generation biofuels, and of biofuel policies, are zombies whose brains have been brainwashed by Big Oil? Get up from your computer terminal, Jerry DD, and actually talk with those critics. You will find that most have arrived at their opinions through reasoned analysis and hard facts that have nothing to do with the propaganda of Big Oil.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169278-vinod-khosla-on-failure-take-more-risk?source=feed#comment-733697 733697
Take Range Fuels, for example, his much-hyped foray into cellulosic ethanol production. That benefited from huge grants from the Federal Government, as well as subsidies from the State of Georgia. And at the time the initial decision to go ahead with the plant was made, the blenders' credit was $0.51 per gallon. But that wasn't good enough, so Khosla and his cronies lobbied Congress hard to create a special producer's tax credit of $1.01 per gallon, and for a separate federal mandate for the fuel.

"Our specialty is risk"?! He would be more truthful if he said, "Our specialty is milking the federal teat".]]> Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:55:40 -0400
Take Range Fuels, for example, his much-hyped foray into cellulosic ethanol production. That benefited from huge grants from the Federal Government, as well as subsidies from the State of Georgia. And at the time the initial decision to go ahead with the plant was made, the blenders' credit was $0.51 per gallon. But that wasn't good enough, so Khosla and his cronies lobbied Congress hard to create a special producer's tax credit of $1.01 per gallon, and for a separate federal mandate for the fuel.

"Our specialty is risk"?! He would be more truthful if he said, "Our specialty is milking the federal teat".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168537-the-economic-benefits-of-climate-legislation?source=feed#comment-728186 728186
"In these areas [the Rust Belt], voters are going to be more willing to subsidize or underwrite legislation to attract new business. Solar and wind manufacturers will seek out these tax breaks and as time goes on they will get more generous. How generous can these programs get? When Taiwan wanted to build a chip industry, it created a tax credit structure so generous that for years behemoths like TSMC made more money after taxes in a profitable year than before because of accumulated credits. North Americans have been reluctant to go as far with their tax breaks as some foreign governments, but if the economy doesn't crumble, Midwest state governments will up the ante."

That's the scary bit. Perhaps North Americans have been reluctant to go as far with tax breaks as have places by Taiwan, but investment incentives have been used with abandon by many Midwest and southern states over the last two decades. For a good review of the trend, see Greg LeRoy's, "The Great American Jobs Scam" (greatamericanjobsscam.com), and Kenny Thomas's, "Investment Incentives: Growing use, uncertain benefits, uneven controls" (globalsubsidies.org/en...) Canadian provinces, by contrast, are at least part of a "no-piracy" pact -- i.e., they have agreed not to poach companies from one another with investment incentives

With all the extra money from the stimulus packages chasing new investments in cleaner energy, competition to attract investment is becoming fierce. As the people at Good Jobs First point out, the main winners in the competition among governments to offer larger and larger investment incentives are the companies that are the beneficiaries of these incentives.

It is certainly logical that a retooled Midwest would have a lot to offer new renewable-energy technologies, thanks to their central locations, skilled workers, and excellent transport connections. But the bargaining power over manufacturing location belongs to the companies, and until state governments agree collectively to restrain themselves in bidding against each other to attract big investors, there remains a big risk that the net benefits to the taxpayers of those states, and to the nation as a whole, will be significantly diminished.]]> Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:17:14 -0400
"In these areas [the Rust Belt], voters are going to be more willing to subsidize or underwrite legislation to attract new business. Solar and wind manufacturers will seek out these tax breaks and as time goes on they will get more generous. How generous can these programs get? When Taiwan wanted to build a chip industry, it created a tax credit structure so generous that for years behemoths like TSMC made more money after taxes in a profitable year than before because of accumulated credits. North Americans have been reluctant to go as far with their tax breaks as some foreign governments, but if the economy doesn't crumble, Midwest state governments will up the ante."

That's the scary bit. Perhaps North Americans have been reluctant to go as far with tax breaks as have places by Taiwan, but investment incentives have been used with abandon by many Midwest and southern states over the last two decades. For a good review of the trend, see Greg LeRoy's, "The Great American Jobs Scam" (greatamericanjobsscam.com), and Kenny Thomas's, "Investment Incentives: Growing use, uncertain benefits, uneven controls" (globalsubsidies.org/en...) Canadian provinces, by contrast, are at least part of a "no-piracy" pact -- i.e., they have agreed not to poach companies from one another with investment incentives

With all the extra money from the stimulus packages chasing new investments in cleaner energy, competition to attract investment is becoming fierce. As the people at Good Jobs First point out, the main winners in the competition among governments to offer larger and larger investment incentives are the companies that are the beneficiaries of these incentives.

It is certainly logical that a retooled Midwest would have a lot to offer new renewable-energy technologies, thanks to their central locations, skilled workers, and excellent transport connections. But the bargaining power over manufacturing location belongs to the companies, and until state governments agree collectively to restrain themselves in bidding against each other to attract big investors, there remains a big risk that the net benefits to the taxpayers of those states, and to the nation as a whole, will be significantly diminished.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163141-the-energy-efficiency-paradox?source=feed#comment-688856 688856
Take automobiles: while people did start buying bigger, less energy-efficient cars and SUVs after the big gains in the 1975-85 period, lower energy prices also were a major factor. And don't forget that the U.S. population has grown by 1/3 since 1980. That growth has nothing to do with improved energy efficicency.]]> Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:25:45 -0400
Take automobiles: while people did start buying bigger, less energy-efficient cars and SUVs after the big gains in the 1975-85 period, lower energy prices also were a major factor. And don't forget that the U.S. population has grown by 1/3 since 1980. That growth has nothing to do with improved energy efficicency.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155738-90-a-barrel-oil-is-the-floor-for-cellulosic-ethanol-says-study?source=feed#comment-686326 686326
No. The U.S. consumed 137.8 billion gallons of GASOLINE in 2008. Its consumption of petroleum was more on the order of 300 billion gallons.

"75 billion gallon a year business"?! For the whole world, maybe. Someday. But not in the United States, not in most of our lifetimes.]]> Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:24:03 -0400
No. The U.S. consumed 137.8 billion gallons of GASOLINE in 2008. Its consumption of petroleum was more on the order of 300 billion gallons.

"75 billion gallon a year business"?! For the whole world, maybe. Someday. But not in the United States, not in most of our lifetimes.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162669-suntech-to-solarworld-careful-what-you-wish-for?source=feed#comment-685978 685978 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:54:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160071-one-in-two-solar-firms-will-fail-say-analysts?source=feed#comment-663044 663044 Sat, 05 Sep 2009 10:29:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/159588-how-to-invest-in-cellulosic-ethanol?source=feed#comment-660078 660078
Yet at least some of those policies have expiry dates. And while the U.S. Congress has so far shown its willingness to keep extending the subsidies and tariff barriers, can it be counted on doing that indefinitely, especially once (if) the industry starts scaling up? Unlike subsidies for capital investment, the volume-related subsidies on which the ethanol industry relies have to be paid out year after year. With tight budgets, is Congress going to be willing to commit indefinitely to subsidize driving at several tens of billions of dollars a year?

As for Europe, don't be so sure. Europe does not have a large amount of "surplus" ligno-cellulosic biomass to turn into ethanol, and its environmental groups will not accept a big shift from growing crops for food and feed to growing crops for energy. Finally, and perhaps most important, its transport sector is much more dependent on middle distilates (diesel and jet kerosene) than it is on gasoline.]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:20:31 -0400
Yet at least some of those policies have expiry dates. And while the U.S. Congress has so far shown its willingness to keep extending the subsidies and tariff barriers, can it be counted on doing that indefinitely, especially once (if) the industry starts scaling up? Unlike subsidies for capital investment, the volume-related subsidies on which the ethanol industry relies have to be paid out year after year. With tight budgets, is Congress going to be willing to commit indefinitely to subsidize driving at several tens of billions of dollars a year?

As for Europe, don't be so sure. Europe does not have a large amount of "surplus" ligno-cellulosic biomass to turn into ethanol, and its environmental groups will not accept a big shift from growing crops for food and feed to growing crops for energy. Finally, and perhaps most important, its transport sector is much more dependent on middle distilates (diesel and jet kerosene) than it is on gasoline.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156440-the-collapse-of-the-ccx-carbon-emissions-contract?source=feed#comment-632796 632796 Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:47:40 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/154935-greg-mankiw-on-cap-and-trade-nyt?source=feed#comment-621749 621749
Leftfield: would you rather we keep going as we have: subsidizing fossil fuels, and then subsidizing biofuels because we are subsidizing fossil fuels, then subsidizing electric vehicles because we are subsidizing ethanol ... ad infinitum? From where do you think those subsidies come?]]> Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:29:56 -0400
Leftfield: would you rather we keep going as we have: subsidizing fossil fuels, and then subsidizing biofuels because we are subsidizing fossil fuels, then subsidizing electric vehicles because we are subsidizing ethanol ... ad infinitum? From where do you think those subsidies come?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153938-the-american-patient-energy?source=feed#comment-619239 619239 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:50:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/153938-the-american-patient-energy?source=feed#comment-617710 617710
Sweden gets most of its ethanol supplies, especially for its bus fleet (imported under a special arrangement with the EU that allows it to charge a much lower import tariff than otherwise), from BRAZIL. It produces a bit of ethanol domestically from wheat, and also as a byproduct of cellulose production, but the bulk is imported.

The main importer of that ethanol, SEKAB, last year created a private sustainability standard for ethanol called the "Verified Sustainable Ethanol Initiative." It claims that all of the ethanol thus certified attains a 85% improvement in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions compared with gasoline. Unfortunately, actual audits suggest that the producers aren't quite attaining that level yet.

And, by the way, I thought that most of Tivoli Gardens (except for the concert halls) closes for the winter. Unless they open it up especially for the occassion, I doubt very much that Climate delegates are going to hang around there this December drinking large amounts of beer.]]> Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:08:54 -0400
Sweden gets most of its ethanol supplies, especially for its bus fleet (imported under a special arrangement with the EU that allows it to charge a much lower import tariff than otherwise), from BRAZIL. It produces a bit of ethanol domestically from wheat, and also as a byproduct of cellulose production, but the bulk is imported.

The main importer of that ethanol, SEKAB, last year created a private sustainability standard for ethanol called the "Verified Sustainable Ethanol Initiative." It claims that all of the ethanol thus certified attains a 85% improvement in life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions compared with gasoline. Unfortunately, actual audits suggest that the producers aren't quite attaining that level yet.

And, by the way, I thought that most of Tivoli Gardens (except for the concert halls) closes for the winter. Unless they open it up especially for the occassion, I doubt very much that Climate delegates are going to hang around there this December drinking large amounts of beer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153805-robbing-renewable-energy-to-pay-for-cash-for-clunkers?source=feed#comment-616057 616057 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:32:36 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/153805-robbing-renewable-energy-to-pay-for-cash-for-clunkers?source=feed#comment-616009 616009
In Sam Jaffe's enthusiasm for loan guarantees, however, he forgets that some of the parts and components of renewable-energy and grid-upgrading projects would also likely be imported. (That is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way: it is the price of being a member of a club, the WTO, that helps keep other economies open to U.S. goods and services as well.) Hence there is no basis for him to claim that $2 billion in loan guarantees will result in at least $20 billion worth of economic activity, "all of which will have to take place on U.S. soil."]]> Wed, 05 Aug 2009 09:15:09 -0400
In Sam Jaffe's enthusiasm for loan guarantees, however, he forgets that some of the parts and components of renewable-energy and grid-upgrading projects would also likely be imported. (That is not necessarily a bad thing, by the way: it is the price of being a member of a club, the WTO, that helps keep other economies open to U.S. goods and services as well.) Hence there is no basis for him to claim that $2 billion in loan guarantees will result in at least $20 billion worth of economic activity, "all of which will have to take place on U.S. soil."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/151486-bp-scientist-ethanol-easier-than-biodiesel?source=feed#comment-607686 607686
Yes, I know oil is fungible. But from where did you get the 40% number? According to this chart, total world oil reserves are 1,350 billion barrels.

nationmaster.com/graph...

Being generous in the definition of "enemy", I would count the reserves of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Burma and Cuba. Adding those together, I get just under 25%. I am not counting Saudi Arabia (20% of world reserves) as an enemy. Though some of its diaspora (like Osama) might be sworn enemies of the United States, its government is not, nor are most of its citizens. Not wanting U.S. military bases on its soil does not make Saudi Arabia an enemy, any less than it makes Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland or any of a large number of other countries who don't want U.S. military bases on their soil enemies of America. (Would you like Saudi Arabia to set up a military base in your state?)

"We are at war in Afghanistan because Osama who wanted us out of Saudi Arabia where we were because of OIL was hiding, attacking us from there, No?"

No. Ever heard of the Taliban? They long precede Osama. Indeed, the United States encouraged the Taliban at first as our enemy's (Sovient Union) enemy. The Taliban regards western culture as decadent; so does Osame. They were a match made in heaven.

"The money for terrorist mostly comes from the countries, people who are wealthy, in power because of oil. No? Where were most of the 9-11 hijackers from? Iceland?"

At the time that the 9-11 attacks were being planned, oil prices were at a record low. It does not take much money to fund terrorism. And, as you point out, oil money is fungible. So even if the USA were to stop importing oil, other countries would. Trying to stop terrorism through subsidizing biofuels is about the least cost-effective way I can imagine to address the problem of terrorism.

We need, above all, to be winning hearts and minds in the countries harboring terrorists; not creating new terrorists and terrorist sympathizers (as we did in Iraq); and getting serious about tracking down the leaders and bringing them to justice.

"While there were some other excuses no one who thinks well so I guess that leaves you out ... "

Translation into English, please?]]> Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:34:31 -0400
Yes, I know oil is fungible. But from where did you get the 40% number? According to this chart, total world oil reserves are 1,350 billion barrels.

nationmaster.com/graph...

Being generous in the definition of "enemy", I would count the reserves of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Burma and Cuba. Adding those together, I get just under 25%. I am not counting Saudi Arabia (20% of world reserves) as an enemy. Though some of its diaspora (like Osama) might be sworn enemies of the United States, its government is not, nor are most of its citizens. Not wanting U.S. military bases on its soil does not make Saudi Arabia an enemy, any less than it makes Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland or any of a large number of other countries who don't want U.S. military bases on their soil enemies of America. (Would you like Saudi Arabia to set up a military base in your state?)

"We are at war in Afghanistan because Osama who wanted us out of Saudi Arabia where we were because of OIL was hiding, attacking us from there, No?"

No. Ever heard of the Taliban? They long precede Osama. Indeed, the United States encouraged the Taliban at first as our enemy's (Sovient Union) enemy. The Taliban regards western culture as decadent; so does Osame. They were a match made in heaven.

"The money for terrorist mostly comes from the countries, people who are wealthy, in power because of oil. No? Where were most of the 9-11 hijackers from? Iceland?"

At the time that the 9-11 attacks were being planned, oil prices were at a record low. It does not take much money to fund terrorism. And, as you point out, oil money is fungible. So even if the USA were to stop importing oil, other countries would. Trying to stop terrorism through subsidizing biofuels is about the least cost-effective way I can imagine to address the problem of terrorism.

We need, above all, to be winning hearts and minds in the countries harboring terrorists; not creating new terrorists and terrorist sympathizers (as we did in Iraq); and getting serious about tracking down the leaders and bringing them to justice.

"While there were some other excuses no one who thinks well so I guess that leaves you out ... "

Translation into English, please?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/151486-bp-scientist-ethanol-easier-than-biodiesel?source=feed#comment-606208 606208
Note to Jerry: U.S. imports of petroleum from Iran are zero, and have been for some time (since the U.S. government started imposing sanctions on trade with Iran after the 1979 revolution):

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...

And just out of curiosity, from what terrorists is the United States buying oil? I'm sure that the State Department would want to know. Please provide names and contact details. I assume Canadians (e.g., Quebec separatists) do not count.

Speaking of terrorists, JerryDD asserts that "We are at war now for 1 reason, OIL!!!". So, it has nothing to do with terrorism (in Afghanistan, which has no oil), alleged weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), or that GWB wanted to finish a war (in Iraq) that daddy started, or to secure a strategic base in order to be able to mount strikes against (possibly nuclear-armed) Iran?]]> Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:28:25 -0400
Note to Jerry: U.S. imports of petroleum from Iran are zero, and have been for some time (since the U.S. government started imposing sanctions on trade with Iran after the 1979 revolution):

tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...

And just out of curiosity, from what terrorists is the United States buying oil? I'm sure that the State Department would want to know. Please provide names and contact details. I assume Canadians (e.g., Quebec separatists) do not count.

Speaking of terrorists, JerryDD asserts that "We are at war now for 1 reason, OIL!!!". So, it has nothing to do with terrorism (in Afghanistan, which has no oil), alleged weapons of mass destruction (in Iraq), or that GWB wanted to finish a war (in Iraq) that daddy started, or to secure a strategic base in order to be able to mount strikes against (possibly nuclear-armed) Iran?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149615-algae-biofuel-sustainable-markets-stocks-to-benefit?source=feed#comment-593634 593634
The articles about the planned algae-fuelled power plant in Venice, Italy are long on hype and short on details:

ecoworldly.com/2009/03.../

First the articles say that "Italy recently announced a 200 million euro eco-friendly project TO HARVEST the prolific seaweed that lines Venice’s canals and transform it into emissions-free energy." [My emphasis.] Then the article says "The algae will be cultivated in laboratories and put in plastic cylinders where water, carbon dioxide, and sunshine can trigger photosynthesis. The resulting biomass will be treated further to produce a fuel to turn turbines."

Well, which is it, folks? Will the algae be harvested, dried, and then combusted as a solid fuel? Or is it going to be cultivated, and then treated (i.e., oils extracted?) so that it can be used as a fuel in gas turbines?

I'll believe this one when I see it.]]> Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:27:32 -0400
The articles about the planned algae-fuelled power plant in Venice, Italy are long on hype and short on details:

ecoworldly.com/2009/03.../

First the articles say that "Italy recently announced a 200 million euro eco-friendly project TO HARVEST the prolific seaweed that lines Venice’s canals and transform it into emissions-free energy." [My emphasis.] Then the article says "The algae will be cultivated in laboratories and put in plastic cylinders where water, carbon dioxide, and sunshine can trigger photosynthesis. The resulting biomass will be treated further to produce a fuel to turn turbines."

Well, which is it, folks? Will the algae be harvested, dried, and then combusted as a solid fuel? Or is it going to be cultivated, and then treated (i.e., oils extracted?) so that it can be used as a fuel in gas turbines?

I'll believe this one when I see it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149633-u-s-hits-record-energy-efficiency?source=feed#comment-593610 593610 Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:11:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/147250-not-all-green-jobs-were-created-equal?source=feed#comment-577383 577383
newamerica.net/files/G...

Failure to account for that fact risks overstating the job-creation benefits of investments in green sectors. That some stimulus money may leak out to foreign suppliers is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if other countries providing "green" stimulus packages are also allowing imports from America. But if politicians who previously supported green spending on the assumption that all of the money would stay within national borders start hearing that some of the material and equipment is (gasp!) being imported, things could start to get ugly. ]]> Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:40:26 -0400
newamerica.net/files/G...

Failure to account for that fact risks overstating the job-creation benefits of investments in green sectors. That some stimulus money may leak out to foreign suppliers is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if other countries providing "green" stimulus packages are also allowing imports from America. But if politicians who previously supported green spending on the assumption that all of the money would stay within national borders start hearing that some of the material and equipment is (gasp!) being imported, things could start to get ugly. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146586-sustainable-bio-fuel-aviation-performs-well?source=feed#comment-571785 571785
enviro.aero/Content/Up...]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:51:46 -0400
enviro.aero/Content/Up...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146586-sustainable-bio-fuel-aviation-performs-well?source=feed#comment-571783 571783
"The main hurdles are in attracting investment for biofuels production and distribution and ensuring that the industry has access to this biofuel stock, at a price that is costcompetitive with traditional jet fuel.

"The industry has called on governments to assist potential biofuel suppliers to develop the necessary feedstock and refining systems – at least until the fledgling industry has achieved the necessary critical mass.

"The positive incentives required include:

"(1) Assistance in identifying the most suitable areas in which to grow these crops.

"(2) Support in starting the farming and production of algae – building of facilities, hiring labour resources, buying seeds and setting up any irrigation components.

"(3) Incentives for companies to develop the processing and refining capacity needed to turn raw feedstock into biofuel crude oil and then into biojet fuel.

"(4) Positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate the economic viability of these new types of fuels so that airlines can use them as quickly as possible."

When an industry starts referring cryptically to "incentives" and "positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate ... economic viability" it is time to check your wallets. While, personally, I cannot see governments being willing to bridge the enormous cost gap between petroleum jet and biojet, stupider things have happened.

Don't forget: subsidies to ethanol and biodiesel were time limited and supposed to last only "until the fledgling industry ha[d] achieved the necessary critical mass." Well, the ethanol industry has long surpassed the level of "critical mass", yet it has no intention of giving up its subsidies. And the biodiesel industry -- dependent on the same lipid feedstocks as the makers of biojet -- will likely never be economically viable, and yet governments continue to keep it on a life-support system.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:50:56 -0400
"The main hurdles are in attracting investment for biofuels production and distribution and ensuring that the industry has access to this biofuel stock, at a price that is costcompetitive with traditional jet fuel.

"The industry has called on governments to assist potential biofuel suppliers to develop the necessary feedstock and refining systems – at least until the fledgling industry has achieved the necessary critical mass.

"The positive incentives required include:

"(1) Assistance in identifying the most suitable areas in which to grow these crops.

"(2) Support in starting the farming and production of algae – building of facilities, hiring labour resources, buying seeds and setting up any irrigation components.

"(3) Incentives for companies to develop the processing and refining capacity needed to turn raw feedstock into biofuel crude oil and then into biojet fuel.

"(4) Positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate the economic viability of these new types of fuels so that airlines can use them as quickly as possible."

When an industry starts referring cryptically to "incentives" and "positive fiscal and legal frameworks to facilitate ... economic viability" it is time to check your wallets. While, personally, I cannot see governments being willing to bridge the enormous cost gap between petroleum jet and biojet, stupider things have happened.

Don't forget: subsidies to ethanol and biodiesel were time limited and supposed to last only "until the fledgling industry ha[d] achieved the necessary critical mass." Well, the ethanol industry has long surpassed the level of "critical mass", yet it has no intention of giving up its subsidies. And the biodiesel industry -- dependent on the same lipid feedstocks as the makers of biojet -- will likely never be economically viable, and yet governments continue to keep it on a life-support system.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145209-here-s-why-we-need-a-tax-on-oil-imports?source=feed#comment-563123 563123
Raising the tariff on petroleum imports is not a new idea, and pops up every time there is a dramatic fall in the price of crude oil. See, for instance, this article from the New York Times of 18 November 1986:

query.nytimes.com/gst/...

There is the little problem of the tariffs on petroleum products that the United States has committed itself to not exceeding -- i.e., that it has "bound" at the World Trade Organization. The U.S. tariff on crude oil is currently 10.5 cents per barrel (or 0.25 cents per gallon) and has NOT been bound.

However, the tariffs on refined fuels HAVE BEEN bound. That for "Light oil motor fuel from petroleum oils and bituminous minerals (o/than crude) or preps." (HTS 27101115), for example, is 52.5 cents per barrel (or 1.25 cents per gallon).

dataweb.usitc.gov/scri...

When a country has bound its tariff at the WTO, it commits to not raising the tariff without compensating WTO-Member exporters who are adversely affected, which would include Canada, Mexico and Norway. That would be a very, very expensive step.

That means that, in theory, the USA could raise its import tariff on crude to whatever level it wants to. But if it were to raise the tariff above 52.5 cents per barrel -- the tariff applied to petroleum products -- all that would do is encourage imports of refined products instead of crude, thus further undermining U.S. refiners. It would also, of course, create windfall profits for domestic producers of crude petroleum.

By contrast, the government would be perfectly within its WTO rights and obligations to apply a "freedom tax", or carbon tax, or for whatever reason it chooses raise the excise taxes, on all motor fuels. But, of course, that would not make the domestic oil industry (or motorists) very happy.

So, instead, policy makers try to dupe the public into thinking that they have a cheap, home-grown solution right around the corner: biofuels.]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:33:21 -0400
Raising the tariff on petroleum imports is not a new idea, and pops up every time there is a dramatic fall in the price of crude oil. See, for instance, this article from the New York Times of 18 November 1986:

query.nytimes.com/gst/...

There is the little problem of the tariffs on petroleum products that the United States has committed itself to not exceeding -- i.e., that it has "bound" at the World Trade Organization. The U.S. tariff on crude oil is currently 10.5 cents per barrel (or 0.25 cents per gallon) and has NOT been bound.

However, the tariffs on refined fuels HAVE BEEN bound. That for "Light oil motor fuel from petroleum oils and bituminous minerals (o/than crude) or preps." (HTS 27101115), for example, is 52.5 cents per barrel (or 1.25 cents per gallon).

dataweb.usitc.gov/scri...

When a country has bound its tariff at the WTO, it commits to not raising the tariff without compensating WTO-Member exporters who are adversely affected, which would include Canada, Mexico and Norway. That would be a very, very expensive step.

That means that, in theory, the USA could raise its import tariff on crude to whatever level it wants to. But if it were to raise the tariff above 52.5 cents per barrel -- the tariff applied to petroleum products -- all that would do is encourage imports of refined products instead of crude, thus further undermining U.S. refiners. It would also, of course, create windfall profits for domestic producers of crude petroleum.

By contrast, the government would be perfectly within its WTO rights and obligations to apply a "freedom tax", or carbon tax, or for whatever reason it chooses raise the excise taxes, on all motor fuels. But, of course, that would not make the domestic oil industry (or motorists) very happy.

So, instead, policy makers try to dupe the public into thinking that they have a cheap, home-grown solution right around the corner: biofuels.]]>