Common bacteria converts seaweed to ethanol

[RollingThunder]

Class, for the near-sighted kid sitting in the back corner with the dunce cap....be nice to him- he's dragging down the grade curve for the rest of you...

Talking about yourself in the third person again, Mr Horseshit?



Yeah? So what? Everybody knows that petroleum makes a great feed stock for all kinds of great plastics and other non-fuel products. But that's not what we debating here, dingbat. We specifically comparing the advantages/disadvantages of alcohol fuels compared to fossil fuels in the context of a thread about the development of genetically engineered bacteria that are capable of converting into something fermentable, the sugars in what is practically free, easily available worldwide and otherwise unused seaweed, grown naturally on the ocean so not taking up cropland, and this development could potentially lower the price of alcohol fuel considerable. So your supposed 'argument' about how so much "more groovy things" can be made from petroleum over alcohol is specious and pointless. The people making and using bio-fuels aren't trying to make "more groovy things" from it; they just want to simply use it for fuel, mostly in vehicles and electrical power plants. As the Brazilians have demonstrated, this is both practical and economical. This new development with the genetically engineered bacteria will almost certainly make alcohol fuel production in coastal areas even more economical and thus make alcohol fuels a lot cheaper and more competitive with fossil fuels.

In general, fossil fuels are just going to get more and more expensive as the years go by and the supplies dwindle but the new alternative energy sources, like bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity will continue to get cheaper and cheaper as the technology matures and new developments like this come along.

And ethanol could never ever supplant the 20 million barrels of crude that we use each day in the U.S.

If we're talking about the oil that winds up fueling our vehicles and power plants, then your statement is idiotic nonsense. I strongly doubt that USA will even try to replace all of the fossil fuel energy we use with bio-fuels when there are other, even better alternative energy sources in use and in development. We will probably replace most of the oil with energy from the sun and wind and ocean currents, tides and waves. There are some new developments that make hydrogen production a lot cheaper and exclusively and directly solar powered so that may promote hydrogen powered vehicle development. In any case, alcohol fuel production and use will continue to play a part in the worldwide transition off of fossil fuels and into renewables, particularly in the tropical areas and now along the sea coasts.

You didn't start this thread, numbnuts,

...and neither did you, douchebag, so don't get uppity.

and you sure as hell don't set the agenda.

The topic of the thread is set by the OP, but you are just too stupid to understand what is going on so you wander off-topic in your futile attempts to defend your braindead claims.

Dream all you want, but non-hydrocarbon fuels will make little more than a fractional contribution to the energy mix well into the foreseeable future.

Deny reality all you want, dufus, but fossil fuels will rapidly lose market share in the next few decades as the alternatives get cheaper and cheaper. In addition, there will be increasing public pressure to convert to green energy sources as the negative consequences of AGW/CC becomes ever more obvious to the world public. This pressure will probably manifest as the ending of public subsidies for fossil fuels and the increasing inclusion in the price of fossil fuels of the external costs to the public arising from fossil fuel use, like health and environmental problems. If fossil fuels were priced fairly according to their true costs, they wouldn't be at all competitive with the alternatives, even now in the relatively early stages of their development.

 

[westwall]

I think you're the clear winner of the "Most Completely Clueless Poster" award for 2012.

Fossil fuels release fossil carbon into the atmosphere when they are burned.

Burning fossil fuels over the last couple of centuries has increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels by 40%.

Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have produced abrupt and unnatural global warming and accelerating climate changes that threaten to destroy important parts of the Earth's ecosystems and bio-diversity and also threaten human civilization and populations.

That's why we need to replace fossil fuels with clean, non CO2 emitting energy sources, like solar, wind, geohermal, and ocean energy (wave, tide, current) sources or, second best, carbon neutral bio-fuels like ethanol.

You are serious, right? Please let me know. If I'm wrong and this was satirical, you deserve rep. If I'm right, you're a raving lunatic and at the very least should be prohibited from breeding.

Cool...another clueless retard pops up showing clear signs of braindamage (bike accident?) to spew more demented bullshit....this one looks like he could be really amusing.....have to wait and see....

Ahhh no, you're by far the most amusing delusional poster in this forum. You're a bloody train wreck without all the body parts! You're the USMB version of Jersey Shore.

 

[westwall]

Talking about yourself in the third person again, Mr Horseshit?



Yeah? So what? Everybody knows that petroleum makes a great feed stock for all kinds of great plastics and other non-fuel products. But that's not what we debating here, dingbat. We specifically comparing the advantages/disadvantages of alcohol fuels compared to fossil fuels in the context of a thread about the development of genetically engineered bacteria that are capable of converting into something fermentable, the sugars in what is practically free, easily available worldwide and otherwise unused seaweed, grown naturally on the ocean so not taking up cropland, and this development could potentially lower the price of alcohol fuel considerable. So your supposed 'argument' about how so much "more groovy things" can be made from petroleum over alcohol is specious and pointless. The people making and using bio-fuels aren't trying to make "more groovy things" from it; they just want to simply use it for fuel, mostly in vehicles and electrical power plants. As the Brazilians have demonstrated, this is both practical and economical. This new development with the genetically engineered bacteria will almost certainly make alcohol fuel production in coastal areas even more economical and thus make alcohol fuels a lot cheaper and more competitive with fossil fuels.

In general, fossil fuels are just going to get more and more expensive as the years go by and the supplies dwindle but the new alternative energy sources, like bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity will continue to get cheaper and cheaper as the technology matures and new developments like this come along.







If we're talking about the oil that winds up fueling our vehicles and power plants, then your statement is idiotic nonsense. I strongly doubt that USA will even try to replace all of the fossil fuel energy we use with bio-fuels when there are other, even better alternative energy sources in use and in development. We will probably replace most of the oil with energy from the sun and wind and ocean currents, tides and waves. There are some new developments that make hydrogen production a lot cheaper and exclusively and directly solar powered so that may promote hydrogen powered vehicle development. In any case, alcohol fuel production and use will continue to play a part in the worldwide transition off of fossil fuels and into renewables, particularly in the tropical areas and now along the sea coasts.

You didn't start this thread, numbnuts,

...and neither did you, douchebag, so don't get uppity.

and you sure as hell don't set the agenda.

The topic of the thread is set by the OP, but you are just too stupid to understand what is going on so you wander off-topic in your futile attempts to defend your braindead claims.

Dream all you want, but non-hydrocarbon fuels will make little more than a fractional contribution to the energy mix well into the foreseeable future.

Deny reality all you want, dufus, but fossil fuels will rapidly lose market share in the next few decades as the alternatives get cheaper and cheaper. In addition, there will be increasing public pressure to convert to green energy sources as the negative consequences of AGW/CC becomes ever more obvious to the world public. This pressure will probably manifest as the ending of public subsidies for fossil fuels and the increasing inclusion in the price of fossil fuels of the external costs to the public arising from fossil fuel use, like health and environmental problems. If fossil fuels were priced fairly according to their true costs, they wouldn't be at all competitive with the alternatives, even now in the relatively early stages of their development.

The people are abandoning your religion in droves Jersey boy! Talk about delusional! You are a hoot!

 

[Ernie S.]

Great...now come back when you're figured out the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground, 'cause it obviously still has you stumped.

Class, for the near-sighted kid sitting in the back corner with the dunce cap....be nice to him- he's dragging down the grade curve for the rest of you...

Talking about yourself in the third person again, Mr Horseshit?

You can make more groovy things from this...
...than this.

Yeah? So what? Everybody knows that petroleum makes a great feed stock for all kinds of great plastics and other non-fuel products. But that's not what we debating here, dingbat. We specifically comparing the advantages/disadvantages of alcohol fuels compared to fossil fuels in the context of a thread about the development of genetically engineered bacteria that are capable of converting into something fermentable, the sugars in what is practically free, easily available worldwide and otherwise unused seaweed, grown naturally on the ocean so not taking up cropland, and this development could potentially lower the price of alcohol fuel considerable. So your supposed 'argument' about how so much "more groovy things" can be made from petroleum over alcohol is specious and pointless. The people making and using bio-fuels aren't trying to make "more groovy things" from it; they just want to simply use it for fuel, mostly in vehicles and electrical power plants. As the Brazilians have demonstrated, this is both practical and economical. This new development with the genetically engineered bacteria will almost certainly make alcohol fuel production in coastal areas even more economical and thus make alcohol fuels a lot cheaper and more competitive with fossil fuels.

In general, fossil fuels are just going to get more and more expensive as the years go by and the supplies dwindle but the new alternative energy sources, like bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity will continue to get cheaper and cheaper as the technology matures and new developments like this come along.

And ethanol could never ever supplant the 20 million barrels of crude that we use each day in the U.S.

If we're talking about the oil that winds up fueling our vehicles and power plants, then your statement is idiotic nonsense. I strongly doubt that USA will even try to replace all of the fossil fuel energy we use with bio-fuels when there are other, even better alternative energy sources in use and in development. We will probably replace most of the oil with energy from the sun and wind and ocean currents, tides and waves. There are some new developments that make hydrogen production a lot cheaper and exclusively and directly solar powered so that may promote hydrogen powered vehicle development. In any case, alcohol fuel production and use will continue to play a part in the worldwide transition off of fossil fuels and into renewables, particularly in the tropical areas and now along the sea coasts.

I have plain silver and camo duct tape, or would you prefer pink. Let me know I'm going to Tractor Supply in the morning.

 

[Ernie S.]

I think you're the clear winner of the "Most Completely Clueless Poster" award for 2012.

Fossil fuels release fossil carbon into the atmosphere when they are burned.

Burning fossil fuels over the last couple of centuries has increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels by 40%.

Carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have produced abrupt and unnatural global warming and accelerating climate changes that threaten to destroy important parts of the Earth's ecosystems and bio-diversity and also threaten human civilization and populations.

That's why we need to replace fossil fuels with clean, non CO2 emitting energy sources, like solar, wind, geohermal, and ocean energy (wave, tide, current) sources or, second best, carbon neutral bio-fuels like ethanol.

You are serious, right? Please let me know. If I'm wrong and this was satirical, you deserve rep. If I'm right, you're a raving lunatic and at the very least should be prohibited from breeding.

Cool...another clueless retard pops up showing clear signs of braindamage (bike accident?) to spew more demented bullshit....this one looks like he could be really amusing.....have to wait and see....

 

[Mr. H.]

Dream all you want, but non-hydrocarbon fuels will make little more than a fractional contribution to the energy mix well into the foreseeable future.

Deny reality all you want, dufus, but fossil fuels will rapidly lose market share in the next few decades as the alternatives get cheaper and cheaper. In addition, there will be increasing public pressure to convert to green energy sources as the negative consequences of AGW/CC becomes ever more obvious to the world public. This pressure will probably manifest as the ending of public subsidies for fossil fuels and the increasing inclusion in the price of fossil fuels of the external costs to the public arising from fossil fuel use, like health and environmental problems. If fossil fuels were priced fairly according to their true costs, they wouldn't be at all competitive with the alternatives, even now in the relatively early stages of their development.

There are no "public subsidies" for fossil fuels.

 

[RollingThunder]

Dream all you want, but non-hydrocarbon fuels will make little more than a fractional contribution to the energy mix well into the foreseeable future.

Deny reality all you want, dufus, but fossil fuels will rapidly lose market share in the next few decades as the alternatives get cheaper and cheaper. In addition, there will be increasing public pressure to convert to green energy sources as the negative consequences of AGW/CC becomes ever more obvious to the world public. This pressure will probably manifest as the ending of public subsidies for fossil fuels and the increasing inclusion in the price of fossil fuels of the external costs to the public arising from fossil fuel use, like health and environmental problems. If fossil fuels were priced fairly according to their true costs, they wouldn't be at all competitive with the alternatives, even now in the relatively early stages of their development.

There are no "public subsidies" for fossil fuels.

And again you're completely clueless...why am I not surprised?....you're a shill for Exxon, right?...


Federal Energy Incentives (1950-2010)
The federal government has provided an estimated $837 billion for energy development
since 1950, according to a recent report. That includes money for tax concessions,
for research and development, and the value of regulations (such as exemptions from price controls).

Source: "60 Years Of Energy Incentives," Management Information Services for the Nuclear Energy Institute - Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR

Long History Of Energy Subsidies
NPR
November 16, 2011
(excerpts)

A History Of Subsidies

In fact, the government has played a role in energy investment through tax deductions, research grants and regulatory policies dating back to the days when timber was a major source of fuel. Nancy Pfund is a venture capitalist investor in clean technologies, who co-authored a recent study that tallied the tax benefits, loans and grants over the years. "For oil and gas, it started way back in 1918, and [it averages] almost $5 billion a year," she says. "Nuclear is $3.5 billion [a year] starting in 1947. This is our energy policy." Pfund says by comparison, solar and wind power companies receive $370 million in federal subsidies annually — less than 1 percent of what the oil and gas industries receive.


***

 

[skookerasbil]

Talking about yourself in the third person again, Mr Horseshit?



Yeah? So what? Everybody knows that petroleum makes a great feed stock for all kinds of great plastics and other non-fuel products. But that's not what we debating here, dingbat. We specifically comparing the advantages/disadvantages of alcohol fuels compared to fossil fuels in the context of a thread about the development of genetically engineered bacteria that are capable of converting into something fermentable, the sugars in what is practically free, easily available worldwide and otherwise unused seaweed, grown naturally on the ocean so not taking up cropland, and this development could potentially lower the price of alcohol fuel considerable. So your supposed 'argument' about how so much "more groovy things" can be made from petroleum over alcohol is specious and pointless. The people making and using bio-fuels aren't trying to make "more groovy things" from it; they just want to simply use it for fuel, mostly in vehicles and electrical power plants. As the Brazilians have demonstrated, this is both practical and economical. This new development with the genetically engineered bacteria will almost certainly make alcohol fuel production in coastal areas even more economical and thus make alcohol fuels a lot cheaper and more competitive with fossil fuels.

In general, fossil fuels are just going to get more and more expensive as the years go by and the supplies dwindle but the new alternative energy sources, like bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity will continue to get cheaper and cheaper as the technology matures and new developments like this come along.







If we're talking about the oil that winds up fueling our vehicles and power plants, then your statement is idiotic nonsense. I strongly doubt that USA will even try to replace all of the fossil fuel energy we use with bio-fuels when there are other, even better alternative energy sources in use and in development. We will probably replace most of the oil with energy from the sun and wind and ocean currents, tides and waves. There are some new developments that make hydrogen production a lot cheaper and exclusively and directly solar powered so that may promote hydrogen powered vehicle development. In any case, alcohol fuel production and use will continue to play a part in the worldwide transition off of fossil fuels and into renewables, particularly in the tropical areas and now along the sea coasts.

You didn't start this thread, numbnuts,

...and neither did you, douchebag, so don't get uppity.

and you sure as hell don't set the agenda.

The topic of the thread is set by the OP, but you are just too stupid to understand what is going on so you wander off-topic in your futile attempts to defend your braindead claims.

Dream all you want, but non-hydrocarbon fuels will make little more than a fractional contribution to the energy mix well into the foreseeable future.

Deny reality all you want, dufus, but fossil fuels will rapidly lose market share in the next few decades as the alternatives get cheaper and cheaper. In addition, there will be increasing public pressure to convert to green energy sources as the negative consequences of AGW/CC becomes ever more obvious to the world public. This pressure will probably manifest as the ending of public subsidies for fossil fuels and the increasing inclusion in the price of fossil fuels of the external costs to the public arising from fossil fuel use, like health and environmental problems. If fossil fuels were priced fairly according to their true costs, they wouldn't be at all competitive with the alternatives, even now in the relatively early stages of their development.

Links s0n?

HARRY SAYS YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT!!!

Non hYper-partisan links please???


Show us where all the green energy is winning?

Ive already posted up dozens of links in here that clearly display..............LOSING.



Of course, to absolutely KNOW who is winning, look only to where the investors think investments are going............


Fossil Fuels vs Green Energy: Where To Invest? - Contrarian Stock Market Investing News - Featuring Bargain Stocks



yuk.........yuk.....................you stupid dolt!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Because opinions are like assholes s0n.............

 

[Mr. H.]

Deny reality all you want, dufus, but fossil fuels will rapidly lose market share in the next few decades as the alternatives get cheaper and cheaper. In addition, there will be increasing public pressure to convert to green energy sources as the negative consequences of AGW/CC becomes ever more obvious to the world public. This pressure will probably manifest as the ending of public subsidies for fossil fuels and the increasing inclusion in the price of fossil fuels of the external costs to the public arising from fossil fuel use, like health and environmental problems. If fossil fuels were priced fairly according to their true costs, they wouldn't be at all competitive with the alternatives, even now in the relatively early stages of their development.

There are no "public subsidies" for fossil fuels.

And again you're completely clueless...why am I not surprised?....you're a shill for Exxon, right?...


Federal Energy Incentives (1950-2010)
The federal government has provided an estimated $837 billion for energy development
since 1950, according to a recent report. That includes money for tax concessions,
for research and development, and the value of regulations (such as exemptions from price controls).

Source: "60 Years Of Energy Incentives," Management Information Services for the Nuclear Energy Institute - Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR

Long History Of Energy Subsidies
NPR
November 16, 2011
(excerpts)

A History Of Subsidies

In fact, the government has played a role in energy investment through tax deductions, research grants and regulatory policies dating back to the days when timber was a major source of fuel. Nancy Pfund is a venture capitalist investor in clean technologies, who co-authored a recent study that tallied the tax benefits, loans and grants over the years. "For oil and gas, it started way back in 1918, and [it averages] almost $5 billion a year," she says. "Nuclear is $3.5 billion [a year] starting in 1947. This is our energy policy." Pfund says by comparison, solar and wind power companies receive $370 million in federal subsidies annually — less than 1 percent of what the oil and gas industries receive.


***

Who are you shilling for, NPR?

FYI- over 90% of oil and gas operations in this country are carried out by Independents, not majors such as Exxon. You're out of your comfort zone, son.

Farmers receive subsidies. It's called "Mailbox Money".
And how many billions of dollars on top of THIS does the government plow into agriculture in the name of research?

Government expenditures for oil and gas R&D is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of billions in private capital that's invested annually in those industries. And the returns to the Fed dwarf any such "concessions" by way of existing taxes, royalties, bonuses, and fees.

So now Tax Deductions are "Subsidies".

Good lord, grow a brain.

You're out of your league and under water. Swim away, little fishy.

 

[RollingThunder]

There are no "public subsidies" for fossil fuels.

And again you're completely clueless...why am I not surprised?....you're a shill for Exxon, right?...


Federal Energy Incentives (1950-2010)
The federal government has provided an estimated $837 billion for energy development
since 1950, according to a recent report. That includes money for tax concessions,
for research and development, and the value of regulations (such as exemptions from price controls).

Source: "60 Years Of Energy Incentives," Management Information Services for the Nuclear Energy Institute - Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR

Long History Of Energy Subsidies
NPR
November 16, 2011
(excerpts)

A History Of Subsidies

In fact, the government has played a role in energy investment through tax deductions, research grants and regulatory policies dating back to the days when timber was a major source of fuel. Nancy Pfund is a venture capitalist investor in clean technologies, who co-authored a recent study that tallied the tax benefits, loans and grants over the years. "For oil and gas, it started way back in 1918, and [it averages] almost $5 billion a year," she says. "Nuclear is $3.5 billion [a year] starting in 1947. This is our energy policy." Pfund says by comparison, solar and wind power companies receive $370 million in federal subsidies annually — less than 1 percent of what the oil and gas industries receive.


***

Who are you shilling for, NPR?

FYI- over 90% of oil and gas operations in this country are carried out by Independents, not majors such as Exxon. You're out of your comfort zone, son.

LOLOL.....wow, you are quite the retarded troll, aren't you sonny.

"shilling for NPR"....LOLOLOLOL.....they just report the news, you poor nitwit, they don't create it. The article reports on an independent investigation of federal subsidies and it is quite accurate. Your figures, on the other hand, were just pulled out of your ass and mean nothing. You are unable to actually counter the evidence I presented with any actual facts backed by citations and references so you are reduced to spewing pointless drivel.

The plain facts are that the government has subsidized the oil, gas and coal industries from 1950 to 2010 to the tune of 594 billion dollars.

And yeah, numbnuts, big tax breaks are a form of 'subsidy', as anyone but a cretin would know.

Your braindead claim that: "There are no "public subsidies" for fossil fuels" is so ridiculously wrong, it just highlights what an ignorant , brainwashed retard you are.

 

[skookerasbil]

And again you're completely clueless...why am I not surprised?....you're a shill for Exxon, right?...


Federal Energy Incentives (1950-2010)
The federal government has provided an estimated $837 billion for energy development
since 1950, according to a recent report. That includes money for tax concessions,
for research and development, and the value of regulations (such as exemptions from price controls).

Source: "60 Years Of Energy Incentives," Management Information Services for the Nuclear Energy Institute - Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR

Long History Of Energy Subsidies
NPR
November 16, 2011
(excerpts)

A History Of Subsidies

In fact, the government has played a role in energy investment through tax deductions, research grants and regulatory policies dating back to the days when timber was a major source of fuel. Nancy Pfund is a venture capitalist investor in clean technologies, who co-authored a recent study that tallied the tax benefits, loans and grants over the years. "For oil and gas, it started way back in 1918, and [it averages] almost $5 billion a year," she says. "Nuclear is $3.5 billion [a year] starting in 1947. This is our energy policy." Pfund says by comparison, solar and wind power companies receive $370 million in federal subsidies annually — less than 1 percent of what the oil and gas industries receive.


***

Who are you shilling for, NPR?

FYI- over 90% of oil and gas operations in this country are carried out by Independents, not majors such as Exxon. You're out of your comfort zone, son.

LOLOL.....wow, you are quite the retarded troll, aren't you sonny.

"shilling for NPR"....LOLOLOLOL.....they just report the news, you poor nitwit, they don't create it. The article reports on an independent investigation of federal subsidies and it is quite accurate. Your figures, on the other hand, were just pulled out of your ass and mean nothing. You are unable to actually counter the evidence I presented with any actual facts backed by citations and references so you are reduced to spewing pointless drivel.

The plain facts are that the government has subsidized the oil, gas and coal industries from 1950 to 2010 to the tune of 594 billion dollars.

And yeah, numbnuts, big tax breaks are a form of 'subsidy', as anyone but a cretin would know.

Your braindead claim that: "There are no "public subsidies" for fossil fuels" is so ridiculously wrong, it just highlights what an ignorant , brainwashed retard you are.

This guy is like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest

 

[newpolitics]

Why do we need to "replace" fossil fuels? What is wrong with using them

They dirty our planet, steal our clean air and water, and promote war between nations constantly... oh yeah, and they are running out, at which point we will need to "replace" them. How can you ask such a stupid question? Republicans really ask for all the treatment they get in the media. Any rational person would treat them like idiots when they ask questions like this.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's hope none of those genetically engineered microscopic Frankensteins get released into the environment where they can destroy kelp forests.

 

[editec]

And ethanol could never ever supplant the 20 million barrels of crude that we use each day in the U.S.

And the reason for that is just what exactly???? Are you imagining that there is a big shortage of seaweed?

Seaweed that is convertable to energy?

There is probably not enough naturally occurring seaweed in any place to make a viable energy industry out of it.

Possibly they could farm it.

But that would, no doubt, come with its own unpleasant blowback.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Genetically engineered bacteria
Genetically modified vegetables

All this tampering with the natural order of things is going to bite us in the ass big time.

 

[bripat9643]

The federal government has provided an estimated $837 billion for energy development
since 1950, according to a recent report. That includes money for tax concessions,
for research and development, and the value of regulations (such as exemptions from price controls).

"Tax concessions" means they didn't imposes heavy taxes on oil. That isn't a subsidy any more than not imposing a heavy tax on clothing is a "concession" to clothing. "Research and development" are business expenses for every kind of business in America. Every business gets to deduct them because they constitute part of the IRS definition of "income." These deductions do not constitute a "subsidy" of any kind.

"Exemptions from price controls" is also not a subsidy. Virtually nothing has price controls on it, so is everything being subsidized?

The liberal definition of a "subsidy" is so bogus that the government doing absolutely nothing qualifies.

As suspected in the case of all liberal claims about government subsidies to business, this claim turns out to be a total complete fucking lie.

 

[konradv]

The federal government has provided an estimated $837 billion for energy development
since 1950, according to a recent report. That includes money for tax concessions,
for research and development, and the value of regulations (such as exemptions from price controls).

"Tax concessions" means they didn't imposes heavy taxes on oil. That isn't a subsidy any more than not imposing a heavy tax on clothing is a "concession" to clothing. "Research and development" are business expenses for every kind of business in America. Every business gets to deduct them because they constitute part of the IRS definition of "income." These deductions do not constitute a "subsidy" of any kind.

"Exemptions from price controls" is also not a subsidy. Virtually nothing has price controls on it, so is everything being subsidized?

The liberal definition of a "subsidy" is so bogus that the government doing absolutely nothing qualifies.

As suspected in the case of all liberal claims about government subsidies to business, this claim turns out to be a total complete fucking lie.

If they're getting breaks, somebody has to subsidize the shortfall. Are we trying to get back to a balanced budget or aren't we?

 

[Douger]

I smell a war on bacteria......or a run on harvesting seaweed and watching all marine life die.

 

[westwall]

And ethanol could never ever supplant the 20 million barrels of crude that we use each day in the U.S.

And the reason for that is just what exactly???? Are you imagining that there is a big shortage of seaweed?

Seaweed that is convertable to energy?

There is probably not enough naturally occurring seaweed in any place to make a viable energy industry out of it.

Possibly they could farm it.

But that would, no doubt, come with its own unpleasant blowback.

Indeed. There is allways a cost involved in whatever endeavor man gets involved in. Farming kelp would be pretty harmful, in the long run, to the ocean environment and ecology.

Plus the energy cost would be pretty considerable to transport the kelp to where it can be processed. It's never as simple as people would like it to be.