Coalition Of Eight Unveils Plan To Encourage ZEV Production

@Vulpine Your right on 3rd one. Gas tax is less in all of New England compared to California.

Did you know that someone did almost exactly that with an old Land Rover. He stuck a 40hp electric motor in place of the old gasoline power plant and loaded the rest of the engine bay and back end with lead-acid batteries. Turned out that the now-BEV outperformed a diesel Isuzu Trooper in nearly every off-road challenge they faced and even beat it in a drag race on a dirt road. Why? Because it had more torque than even that bigger diesel could produce. Even when the clutch failed on the Rover's transmission, it still out-climbed the Trooper on a trail segment called, "The Waterfall."

@Vulpine Ok, mister bait, here's an answer for you: "As early as 1916, the federal government instituted income tax incentives to encourage individuals and corporations to drill for oil. During the 1930s, federally financed dams created hydroelectric power. From the 1950s onward, the federal government financed research into nuclear power. More recently, the federal government has provided research funding and other financing to expand the availability of renewable energy sources. 2 Virtually all U.S. energy resources have received or currently receive subsidies." -- http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/ Another: "Finding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic. "He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions. "Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to Koplow. "Oil and gas: $41 billion President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004. "The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government. "Coal: $8 billion In second place among fossil fuels, the US coal industry reaps about $8 billion in subsidies annually – or about 10 percent of total federal largess. This includes tax breaks, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars on research into carbon capture and storage. "Those figures mean that subsidies to industries involved in fossil fuels total about $52 billion when adjusted for inflation – about two-thirds all federal energy subsidies. "Nuclear: $9 billion Even though it's been decades since a new nuclear power plant began construction, nuclear power in the US gets about $9 billion annually in federal subsidies. This money is embedded in federal decommissioning and waste management policies, as well as research and development at the nation's national laboratories." -- http://rushlimbaughreport.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-do-we-give-oil-companies-federal.html Now, I'm not necessarily in favor of eliminating ALL subsidies to the oil industry, but it's quite obvious that they're given far more money than any other energy source AND that some of those subsidies are in at least some cases outdated and obsolete. Sure, they were fine when the industry was first getting started, but now they're a well-matured industry and simply don't NEED that help. The same could hold true for coal and nuclear except that nuclear has a much more severe waste problem as well as a need for new nuclear technologies that are cleaner and more robust than most existing generation facilities--as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of nuclear power plants have now operated well past their original design life of 25 years. Coal, too, has an issue that deserves support in helping to make burning cleaner and more efficient--and disposing of waste which is, at best, classed as a hazardous material due to radioactive by-products and simple chemical poisons within those ash pools. Somehow, we need to find a way to not only control those wastes, but if all possible find a way to recycle them either as another form of fuel or other beneficial product. And you are correct, the oil companies themselves don't make it easy to find where SOME of their operating funds come from; through grants, preferential loans and tax breaks (even Rush Limbaugh pointed out "special tax exemptions.")