Print 82 comment(s) - last by chick0n.. on Mar 19 at 11:56 PM

He's learned his lesson about risky loans, but Obama wants to increase research grants

The auto industry isn't very happy with the federal government.  After two decades of inaction on the fuel economy, President George W. Bush (R) and his successor, current President Barack H. Obama (D) have pushed legislation through Congress to stiffen fuel economy rules.  Those rules have cost the industry billions.  But both Presidents tried to make up with automakers by pushing federal funding initiatives that help automakers with the cost of fuel economy research, on the taxpayer dollar.

I. After a Decade and a Half Stall, Bush Kick-Started MPG Progress

A debate of economics aside, the approach seems to be working.  In a report to be released today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce that between 2007 and 2012 fuel economy rose 16 percent, while carbon dioxide emission decreased by 13 percent.

In a report last year called "One Decade of Innovation, Two Decades of Inaction", the Pew Institute points out that there was essentially no gain in fuel economy between 1985 and 2000, despite rising oil prices in the late 1990s.  The agency says that this was the result of so-called "Reagonomics", writing:

In the mid-1980s, however, Ford and General Motors lobbied the Reagan administration to lower the standard. NHTSA complied, setting a 26-mpg standard for 1986, prompting Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca to declare, “We are about to put up a tombstone: ‘Here lies America’s energy policy.’ ”

(Note: 26 mpg was actually a drop from the 1985 standard of 27.5 mpg for cars.)

Reagan v. Bush
This chart speaks for itself. [Image Source: Pew Institute; AP, White House]

But it was another Republican President -- George W. Bush -- who reversed that stall.  In his 2006 State of the Union speech he turned heads, commenting:
This Congress must act to encourage conservation, promote technology, build infrastructure.... so America is less dependent on foreign oil.

He would go on to sign into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).  The EISA would bump fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020.

EISA prompted automakers to invest in new fuel efficiency technology, such as direct injection/turbo-boosting engine technology.  At the same time, automakers were forced to discontinue some "gas guzzling" models to boost their average fuel economy.

II. Obama Follows up With Stricter Standards, but New Incentives

But for all the moaning and groaning among automakers with EISA, it was about to even stricter with President Obama.  President Obama struck down a Bush-era mandate that forbid states from enacting their own stricter standards, paving the way for some states like California to set much loftier targets.

The new President also rolled back the deadline for reaching 34.1 mpg to 2016 in a 2010 CAFE update.  Those updates are expected to cost the auto industry $52B USD to implement, while potentially raising vehicle prices slightly and limiting selection to an extent.

President Obama's "test drive" of a Chevrolet Volt back in 2010. [Image Source: AP]

President Obama has also proposed rules that would set a CAFE target of 54.5 mpg by 2025.  Automakers are upset about the proposal, which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates will cost them $144-152B USD.

The EPA and NHTSA claim that the 2017-2025 push to 54.5 mpg will save $1.7T USD in fuel costs (although the price impact on vehicles is not mentioned; one report suggest vehicle prices may rise $10K USD by 2025).  They say that by 2025, America will have reduced its oil consumption by 2 million barrels per day.  They add that by cutting 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the same period society will have "saved" $326-451B USD (operating on the controversial "carbon credits" model).

Some fear the new fuel economy standards may cost lives, as automakers often reduce frame integrity during weight cutting, and also tend to cut out features like extra airbags.  Automakers are at least relieved that the President backed of an earlier stricter target of 62 mpg, which they argued could "kill the auto industry".

III. Speech to Call for $2B USD in Research Grants

At a speech at Argonne National Laboratory, a top federally funded research institution in the President's home state, President Obama is today set to unveil a proposal to toss a carrot to the auto-industry, which has at times been less than happy with him.

The video below will go live at 2:30 p.m., along with a corresponding live chat on Facebook.

Located approximately 30 minutes west of Chicago, ANL conducts a great deal of battery, fuel cell, and biofuel research -- a seemingly appropriate setting for the President to unveil a new fuel efficiency proposal at.  Under the President's requested proposal for Congress "[$2B USD in] funds would be set aside from royalty revenues generated by oil and gas development in federal waters of the Outer Continental Shelf."

The proposed $2B USD trust may in reality see a far smaller funding total, particularly amid the rancorous federal budget debates.  In 2012 President Obama asked Congress for $650M USD for advanced vehicle research, but Congress only offfered up $330M USD.

Argonne National Lab
President Obama's call for vehicle research funding will be held at
Argonne National Lab. in Illinois. [Image Source: ANL]

While hybrids have sold well in recent years, EV sales have disappointed, even as automakers put their marketing might behind the green, yet expensive cars.  Critics say that it's good Congress isn't giving more funding, in that the technology appears to be failing.  Proponents, conversely argue that the lack of funding is slowing development, which in turns increases EV costs and reduces their performance.

But critics are at least relieved that the President has turned away from providing loans to individual automakers or alternative energy startups.  After the boondoggle of Solyndra LLC going under and taking $553M USD in federal loans with it, President Obama has carefully shifted funding requests towards research.  No loans have been granted in the last two years from a $25B USD fund Congress set aside for vehicle research.

The Obama Administration's energy policy is in the midst of an overhaul amid the departure of U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize winner.

IV. CNG Tax Credit Proposal Revived

Also on the President agenda Friday will be plugging natural gas for vehicles.  Compressed natural gas (CNG).  The U.S. produced 25.3 trillion cubic feet (25.3e12) of natural gas last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  Low costs and domestic production make this fossil fuel an attractive alternative to petroleum; the President thinks it could play a small, yet important role in the automotive market.

The President wants a tax credit for CNG and EV truck buyers equal to half the incremental costs (50% of the premium over a similar model gas vehicle).

CNG Ford Truck
President Obama wants tax credits for CNG truck buyers. [Image Source: Truck Trend]

It appears the President has dropped a separate proposal dubbed "National Community Deployment Challenge", which called for $1B USD to fund 10-15 "green" EV-friendly communities (paying for public chargers, etc.).

To contrast these funding initiatives with past government transportation funding, recent reports estimated that the government has spent around $1T USD to date to develop the commercial airport system.

And not all EV firms have proven disappointments.  Tesla Motors Comp. (TSLA) recently announced a plan to repay its government loans early, amid strong sales.

Source: The Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Taxpayers money
By Uncle on 3/15/2013 12:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Americans had this revulsion about government handing out their hard earned Taxpayers money to their political donating friends. If these industry's are so good, usually the private sector will invest in them and they will stand up on their own merits. I wonder how many will declare bankruptcy after they get all this slush fund investment from the Taxpayers.

RE: Taxpayers money
By steven975 on 3/15/2013 1:01:08 PM , Rating: 3
What bothers me more is that after the taxpayer pays for it, somehow the results of said research are privately owned.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Uncle on 3/15/2013 1:39:32 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Taxpayers money
By kingmotley on 3/15/2013 2:31:37 PM , Rating: 1
The results of said research, like cleaner air, and better security through less dependance on foreign oil?

RE: Taxpayers money
By GotThumbs on 3/15/2013 3:37:55 PM , Rating: 1
You forget about the companies that have been funded by the US Government ......and then fail or are bought by foreign companies.

The US Government NEEDS to stay out of investing, because they suck at it.

Space X is making great strides and is a privately funded company. Good businesses will succeed on their own.

RE: Taxpayers money
By MichaelR on 3/15/2013 11:13:15 PM , Rating: 4
Space X is making great strides and is a privately funded company

Space X has received hundreds of millions in government research grants:

RE: Taxpayers money
By GotThumbs on 3/18/2013 9:10:02 AM , Rating: 1
A grant is NOT the same as the Federal Loans that solyndra, A123, and Fisker have received.

Personally, I'd like to see the grant funding eliminated or reduced as well. If/when Space-x builds a replacement....they will still own/license it and the grant money will NOT be re-paid to the true investors.....US. I can personally wait an extra 5 years for space travel to focus tax dollars where their immediately needed.

Best Wishes,

RE: Taxpayers money
By CeriseCogburn on 3/18/2013 11:33:12 AM , Rating: 1

obama says repubs suck ! SEQUESTER OH DEAR GOD SEQUESTER !!!



Obama: "I think i'll blow a couple billion on my cronies"

RE: Taxpayers money
By JediJeb on 3/15/2013 8:23:13 PM , Rating: 5
If GM, Ford, Toyota, ect develops new tech through government funding, then it should be considered open source for anyone to use. That should be the condition of tax payer money being used for their research.

If you want taxpayers to fund the research you need to meet new guidelines then that is what you must sacrifice, else you must fund it yourself.

RE: Taxpayers money
By TSS on 3/17/2013 4:08:13 AM , Rating: 3
+10 for the moral, -100 for business sense.

What's the point in tax payers funding research if that research can then not create funds for the tax payers? Open source means anybody can use it, so the chinese can just copy it, retool a factory or 2 and ship you cheap stuff of whatever it is you paid for to research, so you can ship even more money to china.

The whole point of subsidy and incentive is to take away artificial barriers of entry to markets. And by artificial i mean ideas that work can't get funding because of a financial crisis having everybody scared, or simply because a bank manager has no clue about inventions.

Because yknow what those companies then do? Hire people, create jobs. That's how the benifit flows back to the tax payers. That's not just a 100% return, that's a 500% return as each tax payer (should) only pay about 20% of his income on tax. And that works, it has always worked and will continue to work.

What your problem is is corrupt politicians corrupting ideas such as incentives and subsidies. The idea is to give they money for ideas that WORK, but just can't get the money. The idea is NOT for goverments to try and control the market to determine what should be developed, by only offering subsidies and incentives in 1 area and ignoring or even taxing other markets.

For example, why has the government canned subsidies and incentives for fuel cells and hydrogen technology? Both are just as unviable as EV is at this point but why is EV being developed and not those? Why isn't there any money going into nuclear research to actually power all these EV's, or to power elecrolysis plants to create hydrogen etc.

I'll tell you why. Cause the politicians are corrupt, they told their friends to get a stake in EV companies and then suddenly "EV's are the future!". That's simply it. It's the core of your problems, and unless that is solved, you can put tax payer money into anything and it will simply vanish.

RE: Taxpayers money
By chick0n on 3/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Taxpayers money
By Paj on 3/18/2013 9:36:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ethanol is cleaner burning

That has nothing to do with energy security

No it doesnt

Learn to spell before you post

RE: Taxpayers money
By chick0n on 3/19/2013 11:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
ROFL Ethanol is cleaner burning ?

ok genius. ya the one needs to get ur facts straight.

so it cost 10 to create 5 and the output is 2 means its a good thing. Dang.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Taxpayers money
By JediJeb on 3/16/2013 11:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
While these are all good ideas to reduce fuel consumption not everyone can afford them if introduced.

You list some very nice vehicles, but for someone like me who currently would be stretched financially to purchase a vehicle costing $25,000 it would be difficult to afford the more expensive fuel or to purchase a more expensive fuel efficient vehicle. I calculated with the amount of miles I drive per year that to replace my truck with a vehicle getting 40mpg and pay for it with fuel savings I need to find one that I can make monthly payments of about $100-$120. There are not many cars that get 40mpg that are so cheap.

The current problem especially here in the US is do you purchase an expensive vehicle with better economy, or purchase an inexpensive vehicle with lower economy. Europe deals with this problem by simply making the lower economy vehicle more expensive through taxes and fees, but how does that help people who are struggling financially? It only works to improve the fuel consumption of the country without regard to the financial well being of the citizens.

For me currently saving fuel will cost me more than using more fuel. A friend from work is offering to sell me a 1985 Jeep Cherokee for $500 that needs a few repairs and that will increase my fuel economy from 17mpg to about 23mpg, not much but it is an improvement and can be done with little expense. For me to save money with fuel savings by purchasing a new EV like a Nissan Leaf, gasoline will need to cost about $35-$40 per gallon. When high efficiency vehicles can become less expensive then more people will choose them. I would like to be more efficient, but I just can't afford it yet.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Taxpayers money
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2013 1:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
But as there is a hole market for small cars here in Europe and most of the world, there is none in the the US, as you dont even can get the Aygo in the US.

Because our Government hasn't taxed bigger cars out of reach of the common person here. Yet, they're working on it.

Lets be clear, in Europe you drive smaller cars because you're forced to. Not because you necessarily choose to.

I have brother in Texas, ware i come every 2~3 years, and still every time, i come there, i am amazed how big the cars are compared to Europe.

Jealous :P

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/16/2013 4:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
Jealous :P

Yes, because i would love to drive my 6L V12 XJS and just get a hard on, just from the sound of it.

But at the same time also angry.

Why, because i actually know that we are running out of cheap oil, and prizes are only gone rise.

Next to that, in the next 20 years, the amount of cars are gone double, as people in Asia are also demanding to have cars to go around.

And the US is the big fat boy, that is eating all the cookies now, and not save any for the others.
And ware we all later have to pay more for the left over crumbs.

And also afraid that my grand kids will not be able to drive a car.

Putting your fingers in your ears and go lala real loud, dose not make the problem go away.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/13, Rating: 0
RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/16/2013 9:40:47 PM , Rating: 1
The realty distortion field is strong with this one.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Paj on 3/18/2013 9:44:23 AM , Rating: 1
Why does the common person need a massive car?

What is a common person by your definition anyway? Someone on the average US salary?

Lol at your depiction of Europe. You make it sound like a fascist state. You can still buy a massive cock replacement car if you want to, and many people do. They just have to pay more for the privilege.

People drive smaller cars in Europe because when presented with the choice between big cars and smaller cars, some choose smaller cars. This makes more economic sense for them, as smaller cars consume less fuel and are therefore cheaper to run.

RE: Taxpayers money
By CeriseCogburn on 3/18/13, Rating: 0
RE: Taxpayers money
By Paj on 3/19/2013 8:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, nice dig.

The modern internet is a consequence of parallel projects in many countries, and wouldn't exist today without the work of Louis Pouzin and CYCLADES (France) or Tim Berners Lee and the WWW (UK).

RE: Taxpayers money
By M'n'M on 3/19/2013 12:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
Why does the common person need a massive car?

Who defines massive ? I've always had 2 seat sports cars (until recently). To me all the other cars on the road are massive. But why is that, "who needs" even a consideration ? There's an implication (to me anyway) that somehow I'm supposed to live at some basic "need" level. That anything above a basic "need" somehow has to be justified.
People drive smaller cars in Europe because when presented with the choice between big cars and smaller cars, some choose smaller cars. This makes more economic sense for them, as smaller cars consume less fuel and are therefore cheaper to run.
The question is if gas (and in some countries engine size) were taxed there like it is here in the US, what would people there choose to drive ? If the answer to that question is larger cars (perhaps even the size of a BMW 3 series, gasp) then the Govt is arm-twisting people's choices.

RE: Taxpayers money
By JediJeb on 3/16/2013 2:46:18 PM , Rating: 1
And when you up the prices 10% a year, at the time you need one, you can get one secondhand.

But in that time I am paying more and more for my fuel. Paying more for my fuel in that time means it will take longer for me to afford the new vehicle.

I also wonder if an Aygo or Think City EV can get me 20 miles to work when there is 8 inches of snow on the road. Where I live it can be the next day before the road is cleared, sometimes even more. Also here I must drive 20 miles or more just to rent a car, and at those places they do not rent trucks. I can save money by renting a small fuel efficient car when I need to take a long trip, so what works for me is the opposite of what works for you in our respective situations. Current(somewhat affordable) EVs do not have the range needed for me to drive to visit my parents who live 120 miles away. Develop a EV that has 200 mile range and costs $25,000 and I would purchase it even without gasoline prices rising drastically. But will that EV last me as my current one has, which is 16 years with 235,000 miles? I hope to get at least 300,000 miles before I have to replace it, 500,000 would be even better. I want to drive a vehicle at least 5-10 years after the loan has been paid off, otherwise I consider the vehicle purchase as a bad investment.

I saw an interesting tidbit earlier today that stated that the CO2 emissions generated to produce the batteries needed for EVs is equal to driving a gasoline powered car for nearly 80,000 miles. This was from an environmentalist who wants such technologies but is disappointed by how little they are actually saving currently.

Also while I like the Tesla vehicles, I can not see paying more for a vehicle than I paid for my house :)

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/16/2013 6:53:24 PM , Rating: 1
I also wonder if an Aygo or Think City EV can get me 20 miles to work when there is 8 inches of snow on the road.

I worked in the town of Hammerfest, close to the border of the arctic circle.

And yeah properly a EV is not your first pick, but there are plenty of Aygo's and Yaris's driving there, and if you live a bit out, a 4x4 Suzuki Vitara would be a better pick.

But that is still a car everyone can afford.

At last a hell of a lot more affordable then a RAM what witch you ever look at it.

And yeah EV's are not a all round solution, but smaller and more efficient cars are, and if you cant get them in the US, you can always import them from Europe, friend of mine got a big classic Cadillac from the US transported in a container for $800, think you can do the same the other way around with any smaller car.

RE: Taxpayers money
By JediJeb on 3/17/2013 10:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
Those prices on the Ram are another reason I am not purchasing a new truck anytime soon.

It doesn't look very easy to import a car into the US that isn't already a model sold here.

That Suzuki was sold here as the GEO Tracker and I have been looking at those also, but seems here many value them as something to purchase cheap and modify heavily for offroad use and the prices have been going up. Reported fuel mileage for that model is between 23 and 30mpg. I have a friend wanting to sell me his 85 Jeep Cherokee for $500 and it only needs a new fuel line and his records show it was getting 25mpg and that will probably be my next vehicle purchase.

It goes back to the same problem here though, until the high fuel efficient vehicles are available very cheap on the used market, and cheap is in the less than $10,000 range, then the masses will not be moving to them. 50% of people in the US make less than $45,000 per year and 28% make less than $25,000 per year. These numbers are for households and it covers about 54 million households so that is about 100 million people. Paying more for a vehicle than a person makes per year in income is not easily done with all the other expenses that need to be paid. Now those are wages before taxes. For an example this year I made $43,000 and paid $10,151 in taxes(Federal, State, Social Security ect) so I had about $33,000 to live on this year. It returns us to the fact, that for 50% of people in the US, taxing fuel and less fuel efficient vehicles to make them purchase the higher fuel efficient vehicles is not something that is financially viable for most people.

As much as anyone I would like to see us reduce our fuel consumption, but until cheap fuel efficient vehicles are common I doubt it is going to happen. Another question nobody is addressing is how well are the current efficient vehicles going to hold up over the long haul(250K+ miles and 12+ years). Will the tiny turbo engines hold up as long as the larger non turbo ones? Will the electronics necessary for them hold up as long? Will EV and Hybrid batteries hold up that long, and if not what will be the cost to replace them? People who can afford to move to more fuel efficient technology can, but for the masses it isn't yet feasible.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/17/2013 12:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
The reason i say 10% increase a year is because, if a buyer of a new car buys now a car, he knows that when he sells it, a efficient car will be worth more then a guzzler.

So over time, lets say 10 you can buy eider really cheap guzzler, or pay a little more for a efficient model.

If people know that, they can plan there purchase better, and more will opt to buy the smaller but more efficient car.

I personally also think its a good plan to let people that use up more resources, pay more tax, higher tax on oil products is a good way to do that.

as for how long the car will work, small cars here in the EU lest about as long as a big one, maybe a little less but depending how cheap the model is.

But a Audi A3 will lest about as long as a A6, 0% to max 10% less, but the TCO over its life time will be a lot lower then the A6.

RE: Taxpayers money
By M'n'M on 3/16/2013 2:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
And own a 6L V12 Jaguar, and a 500hp Skyline that i would love to drive daily . But instead i drive now daily a Think City EV, and have a 2006 GS450h for long trips. But will get in 6 months a "Tesla Model S Performance" that i ordered. Why the Model S, because even do me and my wife got well paid jobs, i don't wane waist it on fuel that cost $10 a gallon.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You have cars you would like to drive but don't, presumably because of the artificially high price of gas where you live. You are being deprived of your choice of the car to use and you want others to live in a similarly deprived choice world. Others who may not be able to afford the luxuries you decide to use on the weekends. The rest of the us get to drive the cars you wouldn't love to drive 7 days a week.

Have I got that right ?

What other choices should the Govt restrict, or penalize, in your world ? Size of the house ? Size of the HDTV ?

FWIW the is a market for tiny, fuel efficient cars here in the US. I see Smart Cars from time to time. I drive a Mini. We have the ability to choose. I wouldn't presume to force others to live with the choices I prefer.

BTW the "US" auto industry already sells cars all over the world. They just make them differently for the different markets and the choices those markets like. Ford sold Fords and Jags and Astons and Volvos (when Ford owned them). GM sold Saabs and Opels and Vauxhauls and ... (when they owned them). There was mixing between the platforms on those brands and still is today. Some Cadillacs are still based on a SAAB platform. Fords Explorer (and other cars) are on a modified version of Volvo's S80 platform. What we get is generally larger engines than the tiny 1.0-1.6 L engines that most are "induced" to buy over yonder.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/16/2013 7:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
What other choices should the Govt restrict, or penalize, in your world ? Size of the house ? Size of the HDTV ?

In a world ware my government looks out for my, and the generations behind me best interest in the long run.

As for other things like size of houses, thats up to the market, but even there are building regulations, like minimum isolation is a normal thing i would say.

And size of your TV thats up to your self what you can afford, but even there energy labels are a normal help fron your government to help you decide what TV you should pick.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Reclaimer77 on 3/16/2013 8:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
In a world ware my government looks out for my, and the generations behind me best interest in the long run.

Yeah you go on believing that's what they are doing..

You are scary. I'm scared.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/16/2013 8:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
That you live in a country ware your government dose not give a shit about it citizens, but only listening to companies and the donations they give.

Ware the citizens have no trust in there politicians to do the right thing.

Man i feel for you, and i feel also sorry that you don't even see that the road the US is on, is one of self destruction.

And i mean that serenely, and not to troll you, or to inflame you.

RE: Taxpayers money
By M'n'M on 3/16/2013 10:53:43 PM , Rating: 2
In a world ware my government looks out for my, and the generations behind me best interest in the long run.

I find it hard to believe you're that naive but there you have it. Do you really believe it's the Govt's job to tell you what's best ? That, rather than advise, it's job is to force ? I'm just lost for words ATM.

As for other things like size of houses, thats up to the market, but even there are building regulations, like minimum isolation is a normal thing i would say.

But why shouldn't the Govt limit the size ? If Govt can act to effectively limit your car choice (for energy reasons), why can't ... shouldn't the same logic apply to housing ? Larger houses use more energy than smaller ones. Why shouldn't the Govt decide what size house you "need" ? Or size TV ? Or just about anything ? Do you "need" more than 2 rooms ? My cabin by the lake has a bathroom, bedroom and kitchen/living room in a 24' x 16' floor size. Why shouldn't Govt, to save energy, incentivize people to live smaller using the same methods used to incentivize small cars ? FWIW I think Govt should stop incentivizing people to have children. Instead of giving people a tax deduction for each child, they should be handing out a tax increase. But that's a whole different (though related) post.

You may not want to hear this but we can save all we want and the world in 50 years will look just the same as if you hadn't. You're angry that cheap oil is going to run out. That's going to happen no matter what we do ... or don't do. The only difference is when it happens. And the growing population and rise of the middle classes of China and India and others will so far outpace the oil savings such efficiency efforts bring forth that you're kidding yourself if you think that having everyone driving an Aygo (or Scion IQ here in the US) will make a difference of more than a few years.

Take heart though, the technology to make fuel exists. When the price of oil gets high enough (actually stays high for long enough) that technology will be economically viable. Pilot plants have opened and idled with the rising and falling oil prices. IIRC sustained oil prices over $120/BBL are the estimated breakeven point.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/17/2013 1:21:21 AM , Rating: 1
I find it hard to believe you're that naive but there you have it.

I work as a maintenance and piping supervisor in the oil industry, managing between 40 fixed crew till 150 people on stops, and working whit people from all levels of society, from low level scaffolders till platform supervisors, but non of them have ever called me naive.

But hey maybe they all are to polite or scared to say it in my face. ^_^

Do you really believe it's the Govt's job to tell you what's best ?

Is not partly educating citizens whats best for them also a job of the government, and is it not our job to see if they take there advise and see whats important, and whats just government meddling.

I am not saying that everyone should take the word of the government as it written in stone, i even think some of the leaders are idiots, but that dose not mean i don't listen what they are saying, that would be just plain stupid.

But why shouldn't the Govt limit the size ?

Because we are running out of oil, thats not a theory, thats real hard facts, and i seen the latest figures one our oil reserves on internal documents, and demand is outpacing production, and it only getting worse, as Asia demand for energy is growing at a rate production cant keep up whit.
(what would actually be a good thing for me as i work in the oil)

So what don't you get in from the graph in the following article?

By 2025 we will need 125 million barrels of oil a day from now 95 million, maximum peak production will be 130 million barrels by 2030, and will firs slowly till 2040 decline to 110 million by 2040, and faster and faster decline, making unaffordable.

The more we save now on oil consumption the longer we have to find alternatives, and the more money we have to develop them, like Thorium reactors, that shown to have great potential, as the cheap energy alternative of for Uranium.

why can't ... shouldn't the same logic apply to housing ?

It actually all ready dose, if you cant afford to heat your 5 bedroom house, you have to find a smaller one that you can heat.

But its a hell of a lot cheaper to heat up a house, then to drive your car, as a quarter gallon of petrol is enough to heat up a medium size apartment for a day.

Or size TV ?

Why do you keep on, on this, you buy what you can afford, i never said the government has any right meddling in what size TV you can buy, they only can show you by the mandatory labels, what your TV would cost you, when you have it on, and i for one find those energy labels actually pretty useful.

FWIW I think Govt should stop incentivizing people to have children. Instead of giving people a tax deduction for each child, they should be handing out a tax increase. But that's a whole different (though related) post.

Childbirth is declining, who will be working if all the baby boomer of the 50's and 60's, are retiring, and just living of there pension, don't you understand that you actually need people to work to have healthy economy.

Or should we just import more immigrants, as they are all so highly skilled. :~(

The only difference is when it happens.

It will be a huge difference, as the less your depended on foreign oil the better of everyone will be, as its money that is flowing out of the country for what you get nothing in return.

And the growing population and rise of the middle classes of China and India and others will so far outpace the oil savings such efficiency efforts bring forth that you're kidding yourself if you think that having everyone driving an Aygo (or Scion IQ here in the US) will make a difference of more than a few years.

Actually yes, as people in those countries also will drive those small cars.

Take heart though, the technology to make fuel exists. When the price of oil gets high enough (actually stays high for long enough) that technology will be economically viable. Pilot plants have opened and idled with the rising and falling oil prices. IIRC sustained oil prices over $120/BBL are the estimated breakeven point.

If all promises from the past came true, i would have now a 10GHz CPU in my computer, optical drives would have terabytes of space, and we all would have jet-packs to go around.

Till its a proven tech, on a real global scale, i first have to see it before i believe it.

Hows naive one now, thinking that scientist will wave a magic wand, and behold we have a alternative for oil. ^_^ LOL

Wind energy was also a promise that would reduce our need for coal and natural gas, and even do they deliverer energy, its not so mouths as promised, and that go's for every alternative for oil i have seen so far.

You may call me naive, i call you more ignorant, as you apparently have no real clue that the sooner you switch to smaller cars, the better of you are in the long run, when prices skyrocketed, and you real need to switch and you still drive all those big gas guzzlers.

As the EU will import 50% less oil for every driven km/mile, wonder how will be better of then.

ps. I live in Norway, have a almost twice average income, my wive makes reasonable close to what i get, we can afford to drive a new gas guzzler car, if we want to, we just hate to trow away money on transportation.

And on my days of i work on 120foot old cargo boot that i am converting to a living boot, ware we can travel the world on, including a moonpool for diving, and 8 spare bedrooms for if we get friends and family over, on our travels.

And for pension we also don't have to worry, as we live in one of three countries that instead of a debt, has a big surplus, and our pensions are guaranteed.

So yeah i can say my government is looking out for me, but then i live in a small country with only 4.5 million people, here also corruption is a problem but not on the scale as in Washington.

RE: Taxpayers money
By JediJeb on 3/17/2013 1:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
ps. I live in Norway, have a almost twice average income, my wive makes reasonable close to what i get, we can afford to drive a new gas guzzler car, if we want to, we just hate to trow away money on transportation.

I respect your beliefs and do now wish to be negatively argumentative as some. What you and I both agree on is the last part there, now wanting to throw away money on transportation. For me though if I can purchase a car that uses more fuel, but the price of the car is low enough to offset the amount of extra fuel it will use, I am still saving money on transportation, just not at the fuel pump

As for saving oil I think we should also look to using renewable oil such as soybean oil for fuels and to make plastics and such instead of just crude oil. Many will complain that we are then using food for fuel, but we don't eat much of the soybean oil, it can be used as a fuel stock and the remainder of the soybean used for food. Corn, soybeans and many other plants along with algae can be multipurpose is the same way.

As for the government being what should force us to move to different vehicles, why should they? What is the government? The government is not some all knowing entity, it is simply people, people that are just as fallible and susceptible to mistakes and any other citizen. Government has a disadvantage over a normal citizen in that it is more of a target for the temptation that leads to corruption. Citizens should be allowed to rule themselves, but for that to be effective the citizens need to be well informed and educated on all facts. Of course well educated and informed citizens are the enemy of those few who lust for power and control, so when those people come into control they tend to suppress what truths the citizens are allowed to know, even the truth of exactly how much oil the planet has as a reserve and how long it can last. The same has happened with making nuclear a dominate power source, the truth has been withheld and the scare tactic beliefs of a few have been allowed to be the dominate false truth that has been propagated to the public.

Governments should exist to be the vehicle through which all citizens are enabled to rule themselves, not as a ruling entity made up of a few elites.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2013 1:51:25 PM , Rating: 1
You're wasting your time, he's been so inundated by Collectivist euro-style Socialist garbage, there's no soul inside.

People like him genuinely scare me. They are like soulless shells of former human beings. With all the good parts scooped out and thrown away, replaced by a hive-mind like consciousness.

Is he even a real person? More like a robot. Happy to live his life and let the Government "take care" of everything for him.... Sad, it's really sad.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/17/2013 4:54:22 PM , Rating: 2
I get a lot voted down because i say things that are unpopular in the US.

You get voted down all the time because your just a hillbilly troll that knows shit about the world.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2013 5:30:01 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah yeah. Don't go away angry Michael, just go away.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/18/2013 6:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Your the one thats starts trolling and starts calling names, instead of even trying to see other peoples views, and even less to try to respect them.

So i can only see you as a close minded hillbilly troll, that only lives in his own realty distortion field.

And i can only feel sorry for you, that FOX is your only source of information, and because its on FOX it has to be true. ^_^

RE: Taxpayers money
By Reclaimer77 on 3/18/2013 8:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
You're so wrong, I DO see your point of view. It's just wrong.

How am I being close minded? If you said I should pour gas on myself and light a match, and it would be good for me, I'm not close minded if I refuse. Your opinions are the same way. Your ideas are terrible, they've been tried before and failed nearly everywhere. And in my own country I'm seeing those same 'awesome' ideas cause massive pain and suffering.

Look up the 20'th century, aka the utter failure of socialism to bring prosperity. The bigger the Government, the harder it's people fall.

And you can call me a troll all you want, but the fact is we're having this discussion because YOU repeatedly attacked my country for no reason. I was personally insulted, you're damned right I'm going to tell you to your face.

RE: Taxpayers money
By M'n'M on 3/18/2013 5:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
If I try to quote each point of yours I want to respond to it's going to be a longer post than anyone will want to read. So let me try to hit just the important points. (and it'll still be too long)

1) You can try to save your way to ensure that "cheap gas" for your kids cars will exist and you may think enforced draconian car economy is the way to do it but the growth of China and India's middle classes and the overall population growth dooms that idea. Not using to excess is a fine thing**, but let's not kid ourselves. Right now there's about 1 billion cars and trucks in the world, excluding China and India. For every 1000 people here in the US, there's about 800 cars and trucks. In Europe the number ranges from 500-600. Norway is about average @ 584. China (in 2012) is about 85/1000 and India about 18/1000. If just those 2 countries alone (forget about Africa and underdeveloped Indonesia {60/1000} or even South America{280/1000}) come up to European levels of car ownership, it will more than double the number of cars on the road drinking gas. Add in the population growth of 50% by 2050 and that perhaps 50% of a barrel of oil is used for gas and you'll need to increase the fleet average for the whole world by much more than 2x to have much of an effect. I agree with you that cheap oil (and gas) is limited. The answer to that isn't to save (it'll help but it's not the answer) but to find alternate ways to run your car.

2) To that end fuel for your car can come from various sources. Germany produced "synthetic" fuel during WWII. The process is well known and developed. More efficient (then used then) processes exist but, like getting oil from shale, they're more $$ than (present) pumping it from the ground. When those prices rise, and stay high enough, a variety of otherwise uneconomic sources of oil and fuel become available. Cheap gas may go away but gas itself won't for a while. Draconian taxation to force savings is not necessary, and in the long run (decades) won't do any real good. Now if you think that taxing gas is a good means to raise the $$s your Govt needs to run (vs other methods of getting those $$s) ... then fine. How Govt's fund themselves and how they spend that $$ is not my argument here.

3) You want to say that $$'s spent on importing oil to make gas is bad for the country. A fair point but I would also say Govt taking that much $$ out of the economy is also bad. And it's not like we don't get anything in the deal, we get "cheap gas". Govt spending tends to be a tad more hit and miss.

4) Govt here (and I suspect where you live as well) doesn't tax house size in anywhere the same level as it does gas (where you live). Here all the taxes perhaps make up 30% of the cost of a gallon of gas. When I was last in Ireland, it was reversed. The actual cost of the gas was perhaps 30% of the pump price, the rest was taxes. Imagine if they taxed the energy used to heat and cool (we have AC here) your house at those levels for the same reason they tax gas.

5) My point re: population is simple. We have 7 billion on the planet now and contend for resources. Adding 50% more by 2050 can't help. The question isn't that we need people to run the economy, it's that too many can't be supported in the lifestyle you have and adding more is a bad thing.

6) As for the US driving all those big gas guzzlers ... the US uses about 50% more oil than does the EuroZone countries (roughly equal populations and GDP). Oil consumption is down these last few years. Car size can, and is, dropping here as gas has stabilized above the $3/gallon. To me that says the US can and does react to the economics. There's no need to pre-emptively force the situation. And who knows, perhaps EV's or fuel cell cars will have a breakthough to make them economic (I won't hold my breath but still ...). The US, and world, will move to the economic choice(s). You may well be asking yourself "why did I pay all that extra for gas all these years ?".

I'd rather be able to make the choice, to spend those $$s, in the fashion I chose (and know is best for my particular situation). I might save (and/or invest) it all to augment my (also) guaranteed pension. And FWIW I, as a principal engineer for a Fortune 100 company for the last 30 years, make a taaaad more than 2x the average pay here in the US. My wife, before she passed away, did nearly as good. I could have a pretty nice Porsche sitting out back. I don't, even though I'm a car guy, because I have other things in life I choose to spend my $$s on. Like my cabin by the lake and my SeaDoo and my boat. Having said that ... I forsee a turbo'd BRX sometime in the future. **The supercharged Mini I drive presently is fun but just a bit too slow. I'll sacrifice the the 30 MPG for 25 MPG and be happy to have that choice. All the above being choices I would be hard pressed to be able to make if gas here were taxed like gas there.

RE: Taxpayers money
By michael67 on 3/18/2013 6:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
We defiantly disagree on how we do tings.

The point i try to make is, even do prizes are still low, they will go up one way or a other over time, when we really hit peak oil, and demand really outstrips supply.

So what we do in Europe and lots of other countries in the world, prepare our people on whats to come.

Also you have to pay tax one way or a other, why not on fuel, as its a good way to lower fuel consumption.
Its a pretty common accepted rule here in Europe, the polluter pay's. (or the one that uses more then average)

I think if the oil prizes really go up to 2~300 a barrel, then we are all already driving small cars, where the US is still having mainly guzzlers.

ps. higher prizes means more income for Norway, and better salary for me, and our state owned oil profits go strait in to my pension fund.

So for me one way or a other for my personal circumstances it dose not mater what ever happens, i will be well off anyway.

But in a world with less guzzlers everyone else is also a little better of.

RE: Taxpayers money
By espaghetti on 3/18/2013 9:14:02 AM , Rating: 2
Your fuel is $10 a gallon because of your socialist government.
I don't want a socialist government or $10/ gallon fuel.

You've been trained to think about "What I need" instead of "Oh, there's a man, I'll bet he can make grown up decisions about what he drives, eats, how he sets his thermostat, etc..."

It is so irritating as a grown adult to be treated like my mommy and daddy still need to tell me what to do.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Rukkian on 3/15/2013 3:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
While there has been some cronyism, the problem with waiting for the private sector, is that most companies with the money needed for this are publicly owned, meaning that most "owners" are only there for a fast buck and do not care about the future. This does not lend itself well to multi-year RND projects, and can put a country behind others that are willing to spend the money.

RE: Taxpayers money
By GotThumbs on 3/15/2013 3:39:21 PM , Rating: 1

Space X is solely privately funded and is doing very well.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Etsp on 3/15/2013 4:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
SpaceX is certainly an exception, but it's generally true.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Shig on 3/15/2013 4:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
The free market fails spectacularly when it comes to any kind of infrastructure investment.

More competition in the fuels market is a good thing. A choice between electricity / gasoline / diesel / LNG / CNG at more stations across the US would quickly see transport costs go down overall. Of course the powerful oil companies don't want this, duh, that would end their complete monopoly.

The free market is working perfectly right now, if you're an oil company.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Coldfriction on 3/15/2013 5:32:19 PM , Rating: 3
Do yourself a favor and look into how the railroads functioned. They were a larger infrastructure investment for their time than nearly any infrastructure since, adjusted for inflation.

Here's the crazy thing, they were almost ALL privately owned and developed.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2013 5:35:47 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you, exactly!

Just like the Internet. People are quick to point out the fact that a DARPA project lead to the development of the Internet. But the truth is the "Internet" as we know it today, and the World Wide Web, is brought to us 100% by private companies and investments. Who designed and built the servers, switches, and routers? Who paid to lay the cables? Who's coded all the software that we use every day to access it?

RE: Taxpayers money
By Skywalker123 on 3/16/2013 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 3
Do YOURSELF a favor and look at how the transcontinental railroad was built. They were funded with 30 year government bonds and the railroads were given 175 million acres of public land.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Freakie on 3/15/2013 5:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
There are only so many SpaceX companies that can exist. SpaceX is a particular special-interest investment that is doing well because they found a niche that interested some heavy hitting investors. You can guarantee that those investors do NOT rely on things like SpaceX to make their money. The reasons for investing in SpaceX are numerous, from good PR, nice little ego boost, to just wanting to spend their money on something fun and exciting. Unfortunately we simply can't have SpaceX's for everything, or rather we can't expect many more SpaceX's to popup with purely private funding. This is why private industry research lags so badly behind publicly funded research, there just isn't enough interest in things that don't make money within 5 years, let alone 10, 20, 50, ect.

Not saying that privately funded research and innovation is bad, or that it should be gotten rid of, but it is hard to deny that public research is more efficient. Great example being NASA, I am sure you have heard the fact that NASA's entire budget from it's inception to now is less than the Bush bank bailout. Just trying to comprehend everything that NASA has done for our economy, science, and education is quite the incredible task, especially in regards to how much money they have (or haven't, when compared to things like that Bailout) spent.

RE: Taxpayers money
By JediJeb on 3/15/2013 8:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think the number of private successes is larger than most think. Car companies is one other that was a big success made by private groups. Computers got a boost from the government during WW2 but took off privately after that, and most people then thought it would be just a niche device. Even TV an Radio were thought to be niche products when they were first developed but are the result of successful private research.

How many things did Edison and Tesla invent without government research money? The reason it all falls on the shoulders of government funded research now is because nobody is interested in being a pioneer anymore, they are only interested in making money, and that is a sad state we have entered into all across society now.

RE: Taxpayers money
By Skywalker123 on 3/16/2013 11:51:10 AM , Rating: 2
nope, they're getting 440 mil in grants

RE: Taxpayers money
By mars2k on 3/18/2013 1:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like the $10 Billion we gave to big oil last year or how many Trillion we've funnelled into military contractors? How much do we hand out to ingnorant blowhards or do they just spout that stuff for free?

By Zaranthos on 3/15/2013 3:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you attributing this to Bush? The democrats controlled the house and senate in 2007. They proposed this legislation and Nancy Pelosi promoted it. Bush was pretty weak when it came to exercising his veto power.

RE: Bush?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2013 3:29:20 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah lol. Never before have I see a President 5 years out of the White House still being attached to current events and blamed for things the new President insists on doing. It's mind boggling.

How much do you want the bet the day after Obama leaves office the media exalts him and deflects the effects of his Presidency?

RE: Bush?
By Shig on 3/15/13, Rating: 0
RE: Bush?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2013 4:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
Under Bush the debt went from 6 trillion to 10.7 trillion

Exactly! Yet when Obama triples this number, it's somehow not as bad??

I'm not going to sit here and support everything Bush has done. But everything on your list of bad things Bush did, Obama has doubled-down on them, expanded them, and continued them! That's my point.

"Bush did it" is beyond an effective defense at this point. It's pathetic!

left our budget crippled with tax rates that were too low.

Now this one I have a huge problem with. Put down the MSNBC or wherever you heard this, and educate yourself.

Lower taxes never, ever, hurt the economy. In fact how do you explain that right after the tax cuts, for the next 4 years, the IRS received record tax receipts?

RE: Bush?
By Shig on 3/15/2013 6:21:11 PM , Rating: 2
Lowering taxes is the equivalent of strip mining. You get a net positive effect in the short term and a crippling effect in the long run.

We are seeing that crippling effect now with record college tuition debt (money taken from public education) and completely deficient infrastructure that averages a D.

Then we have republicans preaching the positive effects of privatizing everything. Privatized healthcare - too expensive for most people to afford. Privatized Broadband Internet - highest costing broadband for the 27th rank in speed. Fully integrated privatized banking - yeah that worked out super great.

The ONLY way you should be defending the republican party is if you have millions of dollars in assets or make 250k+ a year. Otherwise you're supporting a party that doesn't exist anymore (i.e. republicans before Reagan).

By the way, the debt went from 12.3 trillion to 16.4 trillion under Obama's first term. You're probably asking why is it 12.3 instead of 10.6 when Bush left office. I'm glad you asked, that 1.7 trillion was what the economy lost in the time Bush left office and the bailouts were passed. Keep trying to throw it on Obama all you want, but he wasn't even in office until the deficit had reached 12.3 trillion.

RE: Bush?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2013 6:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
Again, Obama has had two opportunities to revoke the Bush tax cuts. They are still in place. Probably because even HE knows what a disaster raising taxes in this economy would be. And before you try and blame Republicans on THAT one, try to remember the Senate/President is in charge of that.

Look I get that people hate Bush. But I do not understand how doing everything he did, and even expanding on that, is better. Which is all Obama has done since getting into office.

The ONLY way you should be defending the republican party is if you have millions of dollars in assets or make 250k+ a year.

LOl that old stereotype? Okay whatever, I'll let you have your fun.

By the way, the debt went from 12.3 trillion to 16.4 trillion under Obama's first term. You're probably asking why is it 12.3 instead of 10.6 when Bush left office. I'm glad you asked, that 1.7 trillion was what the economy lost in the time Bush left office and the bailouts were passed. Keep trying to throw it on Obama all you want, but he wasn't even in office until the deficit had reached 12.3 trillion.

Well there you have it folks, proof right there. Obama is clearly blameless in all this. It's not his economy, it's still Bush's. It's not him that's refused to pass a budget in 5 years. And he didn't take Bush's (still horrible) $340billion deficit when leaving office and push it into a $1.5trillion yearly deficit...

I love the logic here. Bush sucked, so everything happening under Obama is STILL his fault. And Obama and the Dems, nobody not even God apparently, can fix it.

RE: Bush?
By tng on 3/16/2013 8:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
I love the logic here. Bush sucked, so everything happening under Obama is STILL his fault. And Obama and the Dems, nobody not even God apparently, can fix it.
Of course not, they wont fix it because they don't want to. They can spend money on crap and then blame Bush.

I love people who extoll the virtues of the current admin talking about the transparency and the openness, yet ignore what is going on below the surface simply because he had a "D" after his name. What ever happened to critical thinking?

RE: Bush?
By JediJeb on 3/16/2013 11:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to critical thinking?

Sadly that class was removed from schools and replaced with ones teaching kids they are number one and there are never any losers in any competition.

RE: Bush?
By KCjoker on 3/15/2013 6:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
you might have a point except Obama was just recently quoted saying he had no intention of balancing the budget within 10 years. Then also the Senate controlled by the Dems finally after more than 3 years passed a budget. What was in that budget? More and more spending and more and more tax increases even after Repubs agreed to tax increases in Jan. Yet even their budget with increased taxes still didn't even approach balancing the budget. So don't pull that MSNBC talking point blaming Bush(yes he sucked) it's the Dems that have ZERO intention of even slowing the rate of spending. Of course anyone with a brain that proposes that spending be reduced you're called a racist that wants to put a shiv in the elderly and strangle children.

RE: Bush?
By StormyKnight on 3/15/2013 11:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Obama doesn't want to put a budget in place. He will not willingly stop himself from spending spending spending. I mean, look at how he cried like a little bitch when the sequester came about. A 2.2% cut in extra spending, not what was already being spent. I mean, c'mon. If a business can find cuts in the double digit range, why can't the government cut just a widdle widdle bit??? This just shows Obama's complete ignorance of economics. He is a complete and utter moron.

Fuel prices
By Samus on 3/15/2013 12:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
The obvious reason the federal government has pushed efficiency has one direct correlation to crude oil prices.

It takes a few years of bureaucratic inefficiency for the ball to start rolling, then another few years for the industry to research, engineer, and adapt to those requirements. The 70's oil crisis was delayed into the early 80's and efficiency problems were mostly solved with fuel injection, and the spike in oil prices beginning in 2002 weren't compensated for until 2005+ with the ramp up in production and sales of hybrids, record orders of the 4-cylinder option, 6-speed automatic transmissions, direct injection, and now turbo charging/electric vehicles.

The federal government wouldn't have to pass this legislation (to increase "MPG") if their other agendas didn't destabilize fuel prices in the first place...

RE: Fuel prices
By JediJeb on 3/15/2013 8:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
I know everyone will argue supply and demand when it comes to the price of oil, but with the way this product is structured in society it seems it works backwards.

Oil producers want a set amount of revenue per year from their product, if consumers purchase less they raise the price to compensate. Oh wait, but it is traded on the markets so it should drop in price with lower demand, but then remember the producers can also control how much supply is available so they lower the supply with the lower demand so the price rises to bring revenue back to normal.

Only when there is a viable alternative to oil will supply and demand have any chance of working as it does in other markets. But then if the oil companies are the ones who develop the alternatives, where will we be?

RE: Fuel prices
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2013 10:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
You've completely left out prospecting. They have far more impact on the price than you give them credit. And without them we really WOULD be in the situation of the suppliers controlling prices.

Not this too!
By Deployed Nate on 3/15/2013 1:48:13 PM , Rating: 4
So a couple of weeks ago the U.S. was giving Egypt over $1.3B (this is a yearly thing) in military aid. Now the plan is to throw money at this "possibly successful" research venture. Just this week tuition assistance got cut off to all soldiers because of sequestration. I was planning on taking two college classes during my deployment but, i guess there's more important things to pay for than financial aid for the troops.

RE: Not this too!
By Ammohunt on 3/15/2013 4:46:14 PM , Rating: 2
No to mention they can't afford to keep the peoples house open to the public...but hey $2B to The Presidents friends is ok.

By TheJian on 3/17/2013 2:03:16 AM , Rating: 3
You want costs down fire obama who has blocked every bit of drilling he can (except private land where he can't stop it), while wasting your taxes on crap that will never pay off. You NEVER get your money back on an electric car cost. You don't save enough in gas to offset the cost of the car.

Simple economics says if the market can't make a profit on it you shouldn't be wasting my money on it. We have craploads of oil and natural gas, but he refuses to use both in mass quantities which would drive down foreign oil costs (they'd have to compete with what we make ourselves) and produce a ton of jobs just to get it all into your tank etc. A ton of jobs (IE the pipeline etc) creates...wait for revenue...Lower unemployment, lower welfare etc etc...It's a great domino effect that he refuses to use as he attempts to bankrupt America. Kill the EPA and we'll get back to prosperity. Check the oil towns (the few that are left), they have unemployment at 3% or so and are all awash in cash (check the billions in the bank in Alaska, North Dakota etc). Palin pocketed $35bil for a fund while returning an avg of $13K in rebates to each family of four in Alaska during her term. Every year she gave that money to every citizen of the state (avg 4K per person or so). That is what DRILLING does. The Bakken Formation alone has likely over 5Billion barrels in it. That's a TON of oil we are just sitting on. Estimates say we could pump there for 30yrs+.
"In a nation still reeling from the recession, spending time in this part of North Dakota can feel like visiting an alternate universe. In Williams County, where Williston is the seat, there are nine job openings for every resident looking for work. (Nationwide, there’s only one job opening for every four unemployed people.) The 1,500 residents in the town of Stanley, about an hour’s drive away, have seen their average household income increase 130 percent over the last decade. While many Americans struggle with underwater mortgages and declined credit applications, the Western Cooperative Credit Union is encouraging borrowers, flush with oil cash, to take out loans to buy jet skis and all-terrain vehicles."

Obama needs to stop blocking drilling. These numbers don't lie. But it only happens in places like the above that have mineral rights on private land. Otherwise, he'll BLOCK YOU :( Read that again, 9 jobs for every 1 person looking for work! Ghost towns there are now flourishing. Incomes up 130%. Blocking oil drilling is RETARDED. We could drill our way to prosperity for quite a while and erase the debt. But that's not what Obama wants.

You can't spend your way out of your visa bill. It's as simple as that. But Obama knows this already. He won't be happy until we're destroyed and under a WORLD economy. He's only a few more trillion away as we approach 17T in debt and our dollar continues to drop in value along with our credit rating. If you're anti-AMERICAN DRILLED oil you should just be fired for being stupid and wrecking our economy. You want $1.82 again like when bush was in office or $4 under obama? It's all about DRILLING (BUSH) or LACK of drilling in Obama's. case.

By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2013 3:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know who you are, sir, but I would sure like to shake your hand.

Infrastructure Upgrades
By drlumen on 3/15/2013 1:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I think this money would be better spent to invest in public transportation and/or power grid upgrades. Why give $2B to a few companies so they can research this only to have the fruit of that research be given to the rest of the world? Perhaps it would reek of socialism but if the government does this then the IP should belong to the US government with all having to license the tech. For example, I doubt the national debt would be as high if every company and country were paying us for the IP we (as US citizens) funded for the first building blocks of the internet.

With infrastructure upgrades (like mass transportation) all US citizens will benefit, less demand for oil and all the benefits are not given (or taken) by the likes of China.

Just my pair-a-dimes...

RE: Infrastructure Upgrades
By M'n'M on 3/15/2013 3:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
With infrastructure upgrades (like mass transportation) all US citizens will benefit, less demand for oil and all the benefits are not given (or taken) by the likes of China

I won't disagree about the power grid but public transportation ? I think not. Mass transit may work in the big cities but out in the 'burbs ... not so much. There's just too much area to cover and too many stops. The convenience of the car triumphs and people aren't willing to give up that convenience.

As for this initiative ... meh. It's another flavor of PNVG. Maybe some good will come out of it, maybe not.

The Problem With the US Government is this,
By tng on 3/16/2013 9:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
In a report last year called "One Decade of Innovation, Two Decades of Inaction", the Pew Institute points out that there was essentially no gain in fuel economy between 1985 and 2000
Complete CRAP. People who wanted more fuel efficent cars found them.

In 1980 I was driving a 69 Ford with a 351 V8 that got at best 15mpg. When I started doing allot of driving I found a 80 Honda Civic that got 40mpg.

The problem that I see is that Congress wants two things that are opposed to each other. They want every car to get 50mpg, yet they want to mandate that every car have all kinds of added safety equipment, tracking equipment (soon), and engine controls to reduce pollution that add weight and drop fuel economy.

Can't have it both ways, yet the people we elect really are not smart enough to see that.

By JediJeb on 3/16/2013 11:51:26 AM , Rating: 2
Imagine what the mileage of a 76 Honda Civic would be with current engine technology. The one we had back in the 80's was getting 35+ mpg and was no slouch in the power department for such a small car. The other thing about it was it was cheap, not double the price of a larger vehicle just because it got better mileage. My cousin also had an early Rabbit diesel that had to get more than 40mpg easy, but even today a comparable VW diesel will not get that much better mileage because of all the other stuff that is required.

No, no no no
By osalcido on 3/17/2013 2:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
This guy can't even pass a budget.. where the hell is this money coming from

RE: No, no no no
By Reclaimer77 on 3/17/2013 4:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
Our children, and their children, and our children's children's children.

He's not spending money, we have none. He's racking up debt, and whether the Liberals believe it or not, one day there will be a reckoning for it. And I hope when they look around they will have the decency to ask themselves was it all really worth it.

Chinese Sure Will be Happy
By KeithP on 3/15/2013 1:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
The Chinese are eagerly awaiting the next round of bankrupted companies to purchase at a bargain price.


By jimbojimbo on 3/15/2013 3:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
Those rules have cost the industry billions
Those expenses trickle down to the consumer so basically it should be "Those rules have cost the consumers billions." Thanks, Barack!

By Richard875yh5 on 3/16/2013 9:22:30 AM , Rating: 2
Don't worry about this being approved. The Republicans especially Boehner will no go for it. Even if this is a good idea and even if it proved to be a money saver, Boehner will not go for it.

Here's an idea
By marvdmartian on 3/18/2013 8:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
No more grants, no more gifts, no more loans, no more foreign aid, until Americans are taken care of. There's no reason why we should continue to throw away money like this, while there's people out of work, families hungry and homeless, and federal employees facing a 20% gross cut in pay.

The administration needs to STOP spending money like a drunken sailor out on the town!

only in Obamaland
By DockScience on 3/18/2013 12:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
Only in the fantasy of Obamaland is taking income from a source which NOW goes into the general fund and instead diverting it to direct corporate welfare NOT increasing the debt.

"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki