Posted on 01/31/2007 8:22:14 AM PST by Red Badger
In testimony before the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources today, GM Vice President for Environment and Energy Beth Lowery urged the government to fund a major effort to strengthen domestic advanced battery capabilities—specifically lithium-ion batteries.
Her stance was echoed during the hearing by statements from other witnesses, including John German, Manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses from Honda and Dr. Menahem Anderman, President, Advanced Automotive Batteries.
In her testimony, Lowery argued for the development of a range of alternative sources of energy and propulsion, the better to mitigate many of the issues surrounding energy availability.
...the fact of the matter is that it is highly unlikely that oil alone is going to supply all of the world’s rapidly growing automotive energy requirements. For the global auto industry, this means that we must—as a business necessity—develop alternative sources of propulsion, based on alternative sources of energy in order to meet the world’s growing demand for our products. The key is energy diversity, which can help us displace substantial quantities of oil that are consumed by US vehicles today.
Lowery suggested five steps the government could take to help:
*
Fund domestic advanced battery capabilities. “Advanced lithium-ion batteries are a key enabler to a number of advanced vehicle technologies—including plug-in hybrids. Government funding should increase R&D in this area and develop new support for domestic manufacturing of advanced batteries.” *
Expand biofuels production and infrastructure. “Government should continue incentives for: the manufacture of biofuel-capable flex fuel vehicles; increases in biofuels production; increases for R&D into cellulosic ethanol; and increased support for broad-based infrastructure conversion.” *
Continue support for the development and demonstration of hydrogen and fuel cells. “Funding should continue for hydrogen and fuel cell R&D and demonstration activities at DOE. The government should also commit to early purchases by government fleets and support for early refueling infrastructure in targeted locals in the 2010-2015 timeframe.” *
Set a purchasing example. “The government should continue to purchase flex fuel vehicles; demand maximum utilization of E85 in the government flex fuel fleets; use federal fueling to stimulate publicly accessible pumps; provide funding to permit purchase of electric, plug-in and fuel cell vehicles into federal fleets as soon as technology is available.” *
Provide further incentives for advanced technology. “Consumer tax credits should be focused on technologies that have the greatest potential to actually reduce petroleum consumption and provide support for manufacturers/suppliers to build/convert facilities that provide advanced technologies.”
John German from Honda agreed on the need for diversity of solutions, and for more emphasis on advanced battery research and development.
By far the most important action the government can take is research into improved energy storage...With respect to hybrids and, especially, plug-in hybrids, the most important factor is to reduce the cost, size, and weight of the battery pack.
The success of electric drive technologies, including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and fuel cells, depends on our ability to build less expensive, lighter and more robust energy storage devices.
However, German also reiterated Honda’s position on the benefit of performance-based incentives.
As Honda has previously announced, we believe it is time for the Federal government to take action to improve vehicle economy. Given the rapid changes in technology, performance-based incentives are the best way to move the ball forward. It is impossible to predict the pace of technology development and when breakthroughs will or will not occur. Accordingly, technology-specific mandates cannot get us where we need to go. In fact, previous attempts to mandate specific technologies have a poor track record, such as the attempts in the 1990s to promote methanol and the California electric vehicle mandate.
The primary effect of technology-specific mandates is to divert precious resources from other development programs that likely are much more promising. If there are to be mandates, they should be stated in terms of performance requirements, with incentives and supported by research and development.
One example would be to increase the CAFE standards. The NHTSA already has the authority to regulate vehicle efficiency and Honda has called upon the agency to increase the stringency of the fuel economy requirements and has supported efforts to reform the passenger car standards. At the same time, Congress should develop a program of broad, performance-based incentives to stimulate demand in the marketplace to purchase vehicles that meet the new requirements.
Ping!....
I've tried to read this carefully, yet I still come away with the feeling that ol' Beth is searching for a way to entice gov't. subsidizing. The oil consumption angle looks suspiciously like a ploy, IMHO.
(Brought to you by the Committee for the Advancement of Truth in Headlines. CATCH)
And GM isn't doing research because:
A. Unions eating up any profit.
B. Easier to soak the taxpayers.
C. We want the gov't to run our company.
D. We can use the money for bigger bonuses! Whooo-hooo!
A meaningful breakthrough and product would mean lots of opportunities for GM.
In other words.. we want tax payers to foot our R&D budget.... Haven't taxpayers paid enough for your scam that got the street cars removed from nearly all US cities?
The "human-induced" Global Warming scam is the cash cow of junk science and junk science business interests. If they can BS people into believing that humans "cause" the problem, then they will be willing to believe that humans can "fix" the problem.
Who will be dumb enough to allow politicians to increase their taxes to fund research and development to fix nature itself (naturally occuring climate phenomena, etc.)
Lenin's "Useful Idiots" outnumber the circumspect 90-1. They are identified by their inability to learn from history. They will always believe The Big Lie if it is told loudly enough and often enough.
Look in the dictionary under "clueless", and find their faces pictured.
Instead of funding specific energy solutions, we should, in all spheres of energy technology and production allow:
ALL energy-related R&D,
ALL capital expenses related to the initial introduction of new/advanced energy-technology,
and ALL capital expenses related to ALL new energy-production facilities,
to be taken as immediate expenses against corporate taxes and not have to be applied slowly, over many years through depreciation.
By this across-the-board means, there would be no federal picking and chosing of which energy media, which technology, which solution should be "subsidized".
Directly subsidize none and give all immediate tax deductions for finding and implementing new energy resources.
The federal treasury will not miss a dime of what the direct deductions permit, because the companies that get them will increase spending and investment many times over, creating more taxable income to their vendors, contractors and suppliers.
Meanwhile, in the capital spending rush, the markets will determine which solutions are the most viable, not the politicians.
Corporations do not pay taxes........
If the answer is out there, there is a capitalist that will find it without my money funding it.
A subsidiary of Caterpillar, Inc......W was there just this week.......
http://www.fireflyenergy.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=93
For a FReeper discussion...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1560388/posts
Nice truism; they just pass them on to their customers, however
Although you're right in a literal sense, that ignores the fact that they must first pay them to the government and then pass them to their customers as part of the cost of what they are charging for their goods and services;
or at least hope to pass them to their customers, depending on the market price situation of their goods and services;
which always means that some companies cannot always pass 100% of the corporate taxes to their customers (add 100% of their taxes to the cost they want to recoup from their sale price), because some to their competitors are in a better cost-position than they are.
In reality, the least competitive companies have to take losses or reduce other costs, to cover the taxes they want to pass through, if they are to achieve prices that will become revenue that exceeds their costs.
How many billions did Ford lose (not profit) last quarter, while, as you would say, not paying any corporate taxes. I wonder what it would actually be able to sell its cars for if it did not have to pay those corporate taxes you say it is not paying in the first place.
If they don't have to pay them initially, to begin with, their immediate costs are lower and they have less cost that they need to pass to their customers.
So, if their costs are lower because the taxes they must pass to us are lower, then they have more cash to spend on R&D & new production facilities, without lowering their current profitability.
In most cases, companies making very large investments in new energy technology and resources would wind up having no corporate taxes to pass through to their customers for a few years. Their greater immediate tax-decducted R&D and developments in energy would also contribute to their immediate cost-price-competitiveness.
Another choice would be to make "TAX EXEMPT" for a period of years (20 or so) any profits from a new energy technology invention or process.......
No.
I would not get into congressional fights over profits.
I would allow companies to save-up the tax-deductions I was referring to in the early years of developments when there is little or no revenue yet (to be taxed) from the development; using those deductions in later years when the development starts making money, which is usually after the leaner years during which alot of the initial capital expenses have already been made (when there was little net revenue against which to take them as decuctions).
It is widely known that whoever it is that comes up with a real breakthrough in battery tech, is going to get stinking, filthy rich.
Let them fund their own %^&*( resarch! Hello!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.