Advertisement

Archive for Friday, May 27, 2011

Power strategy

May 27, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

A proposal to end subsidies for coal and big oil is being opposed by the fossil fuel industry that says the proposal is misinformed and discriminatory and counterproductive in that it would undermine U.S. competitiveness and discourage future investment in renewable and alternative energy projects in the United States and therefore undercut job creation and economic growth.

It seems that the best way to turn the U.S. economy and all this climate change and fouled air nastiness from fossil fuels around would be to dedicate the increased revenues that would result from ending the dirty coal and petroleum oil subsides to developing substitutes for fossil-fuel power generation and petroleum-based transportation fuels with innovative repowering technologies and products that could be manufactured in the United States.

This would encourage investment in more clean-distributed energy projects in the U.S. and therefore lead to more job creation and economic growth sooner, as well as increase U.S. competitiveness through exports of those same technologies that would lower the demand for oil and thus lower or help restrain the rising price of transport fuels.

A multi-tech pathway for such projects that offers CHP (combined heat and power) plus fuels derived from diverse biomass and wastes is the pathway that would amount to an Apollo program to reach for the moon in repowering this nation and the world.

Comments

Flap Doodle 2 years, 10 months ago

Dear Leader wants you to spend more money on energy.

0

gkerr 2 years, 10 months ago

Les Blevins,

some call tax incentives to prospect for energy sources a good idea others call them subsidies. What socialist world view calls targeted reduction of taxes a subsidy? Big Brother speaks again?

USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Targeted tax relief to spur research and investment is not a subsidy. Look the US government is not entitled to all of our individual or corporate earnings. They, the government aren't so bright or worthy of our credit cards- having run up 30 trillions that's 30,000 billions of dollars debt spending and borrowing on our behalf, I'd say we would be better off taking our credit cards away from an arrogant, and profligate and corrupt ruling and governing class. Gkerr

0

littlexav 2 years, 10 months ago

Why do they still need subsidies if they're making record profits?

0

prospector 2 years, 10 months ago

Did I get this right? The same old Biosolids!

A proposal to take away tax write-offs that would result in the loss of tens of thousands of US jobs is good?

You want to eliminate US jobs and get paid for a Rube Goldberg idea you can't get privately funded.

You think one thing but the rest of the world knows the demand for petroleum will continue to go up no matter what.

Apollo? Let hear it for Tang and Velcro! You want something more like Star Wars(Ronnie Reagan's).

sub·si·dy/ˈsəbsidē/Noun 1. A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. 2. A grant or contribution of money.

Not a cent is 'granted' to these companies. If you are talking about farming, ethanol, or unfunded for a reason cockamamie ideas, that is the correct term. What you want to do is shake down five companies for the tax breaks they receive that every other company in this country gets, to write off the cost of doing business.

You can't get a place at the government teat so you just keep on and on and on....

Do your own shoveling and quit standing around with your hand out squealing.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.