Posted on 11/09/2010 3:07:07 PM PST by larry hagedon
Folks, there has been much misinformation published about energy subsidies. In fact gasoline is subsidized at around 3 times the rate of ethanol, but accurate information is hard to find.
Most gasoline subsidies are permanent while ethanol subsidies have to be renewed annually. This is why ethanol subsidies gets all the ink while much larger gasoline subsidies are ignored
Here is a PDF, published this year, that tells it like it is.
‘What we really need to do is eliminate all subsidies, fossil fuel’
Ie, the military protection for the Middle East that allows the flow of oil?
We subsidize for stability.
Here is a PDF that tells how to increase energy prices and reward the poor with cash from the government while also reducing global warming.
Seems like a lot of smoke is shoveled here. Inability to quantify an principle can be a sign that opinion, or political agenda, dominates the discourse.
The OBVIOUS answer is to QUIT USING IMPORTED OIL. The middle East could go back to being the non-entity it was before oil was discovered there.
Nuclear power plants producing unlimited energy would take care of the entire issue in one easy step. There is enough fuel to last 10,000 years at current consumption.
And that's without breeder reactors.
Just who be the International Energy Association ?
I ax you .Just who be the International Energy Association ? And do dey have any axes to grind ?
Bump to post #6.
If you were looking for comments, I don’t think
very many people are going to read an 81 page pdf file...
Hey, i’ll meet ‘em halfway. I’ll be willing to drop a good thing (for us oilpatch types, anyway) if everyone else will play by some of the rules that we have to contend with.
Drop the 15% Depletion Allowance on ALL mining (good), but then have EVERYBODY pay a flat 7% off-the-top Gross Production tax on EVERYTHING that is “productioned” everywhere by anybody in this country(bad).
Make it Law and run it ..oh, ... about a year aughta do it.
Then, everyone will be on the same page and THEN we can have a discussion of who is subsidizing what. :)
The trillions with a T spent on keeping that craphole middle east safe for tankers is a ridiculous subsidy i think.
By this definition, the government can create a tax on fuel just to be mean, then forgive it and say they have benefited fuel companies, when in fact it is not a "benefit" (subsidy if you will). The money belongs to the fuel company to begin with and taxation is confiscation.
Besides, fossil fuels are superior in every way. They are vital to our economy.
An energy policy that relies on biofuels is like trying to climb a ladder setting in quick sand. It sinks as fast or faster than you can climb. In the end, you get nowhere but you did burn a lot of calories in the attempt.
The military is a common cost for society, not a subsidy to the oil industry. The assertion that military costs are subsidies to big oil is leftist speech.
The report focuses on developing countries. In this country, the oil and natural gas industries are not on balance subsidized. They are taxed, regulated, and restricted at every stage of production. The opposite is true. These industries are cash cows delivering a river of revenue to governments who take no risk in the production process.
Most gasoline subsidies are permanent while ethanol subsidies have to be renewed annually. This is why ethanol subsidies gets all the ink while much larger gasoline subsidies are ignored.
Folks, what we have here is a lesson in how facts are used to tell lies.
Our FreePer, Larry Hagedon, says "In fact gasoline is subsidized at around 3 times the rate of ethanol, but accurate information is hard to find."
Apparently Larry never took a course in basic economics.
What is the real value of a dollar amount that expresses a sum of certain subsidies? Is it simply the sum total of the "subsidy" that something gets? Or does it not include what is the level of production of that something that is subsidized? It does.
By ignoring what we produce, or do not produce, Hagedon simply takes a larger dollar amount and claims it expresses a larger rate of subsidy. It doesn't.
The report itself does not do that, and the report itself provides data that refutes Hagedon's claim.
Table 2.4 in the report reflects global subsidies of about $45 billion for nuclear energy, and also shows a production of about 2,719Twh (terrawatts/hour). That subsidy for that level of production provides a subsidy rate of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The same table shows a renewable energy subsidy total (minus hydroelectric power) of about $27 billion, with a production of 534Twh, for a subsidy rate of 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Or, almost three times the rate of subsidies for nuclear power. That's not surprising when it gets nearly half as much in dollars and produces no more than 1/5th as much power.
That table shows biofuels (which includes ethanol) getting about $20 billion in subsidies, with production of 34Mtoe (million tons of oil equivalent). They've translated that to an equivalent for electrical production and show it amounts to 5.1 cents per kilowatt-hour; or slightly more subsidized than renewable electric power.
Then the table shows subsidies for fossil fuels at about $400 billion, with production at about 4,172Mtoe. They've also translated that to its electric production equivalent and show the subsidy rate to be 0.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's 1/2 the subsidy rate for nuclear power and more than 500% less than the subsidy rates for renewables and biofuels.
Keep in mind that in the hands of those who write these reports - all so-called subsidies are equal, and in that respect money not confiscated by the government, and left in the private markets - via "tax credits" - has equal weight - as a "subsidy" - with money sucked out of the private markets by government and redirected with direct taxpayer subsidized revenue given over to selected enterprises in the economy. Also keep in mind that most "subsidies" with fossil fuels are of the "tax credit" kind, and generous amounts of the subsidies for other sources of energy are of the redistribution kind.
Actually, in terms of "bang for the buck", "subsidies" for fossil fuels have the lowest rate of energy subsidy.
Maybe they are a little more careful in their analysis now, but I'd verify their info from other sources.
When ever I see a source with such a high sounding (front) title I get very suspicious.
That is the point of the double post. We still don’t know the process as to how oil gets created but its not liquidfied dinosaurs, and it seems to be a regenerative fuel source which takes a long time to get to that point called, oil.
Here we’re wasting time and money demonizing coal and oil of which we have ample supplys of, instad of creating methods and processes to make their use more effective and efficient.
For years, many Conservatives have denied that oil has any subsidy at all.
You quibble about the degree of subsidy and that is fine, but I have succeeded in my goal, which is to point out that oil is subsidized. Ethanol is indeed not alone in receiving subsidies.
Now the debate changes. For years ethanol was singled out and damned for being subsidized wherein gasoline was given a pass.
Now we know that gasoline and ethanol are both subsidized. The debate will be never ending as to relative degrees of subsidy, but now ethanol will not get all the blame.
Interesting that you point out that stabilizing he Middle East is a form of oil subsidy. I fully agree with you, but many do not.
Good point about not using Adobe.
The PDF went into great detail about various subsidies for all forms of energy, including petroleum.
My point in posting it was to establish that gasoline is heavily subsidized. I used the figure of three times the rate of ethanol. That got some reaction debating the percentage, as I expected.
Another Freeper pointed out that stabilizing the Middle East is also a form of petroleum subsidy. By including that in the percentages, the subsidy percentage for gasoline to ethanol goes way up. How much? I dont know, but certainly by a huge amount. Add in the fact that we have for years now been spending around one billion dollars a day to import oil from our enemies and we can see that Made in America ethanol suddenly becomes much cheaper in comparison to petroleum
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.