As it was with the space race, should the government provide support and leadership for alt fuel technology?
Written By: aaren on November 26, 2009
16 Comments
..should the US government offer tax incentives to gas stations that install at leat one hydrogen fuel cell "pump"?
Also, should the US government provide R&D federal grants to scientists researching alt fuel technologies?
- at least – (above)
Related Posts
Tags: amp, federal grants, gas stations, hydrogen fuel cell, quot, scientists, tax incentives, us government
Yes.
Problem is if/when some of these companies succeed, they will be accused of "corporate welfare" by many on the left, and will have to pay "windfall " profit taxes, and told how unfair their success is.
Yes! And, the Saudis are pretty frightened right now with the current alt energy cars already coming out – they announced over the weekend that they were upping production.
Yes.
Our current energy policy problem is that we have no energy policy. Also, even if we were to tap all of our resources we would simply not be able to be self sustainable as a nation regarding our petrol consumption as we over consume. Alt energy could also help our trade imbalance as our largest deficit is related to petrol imports.
yes of course
germany has 15% of electricity from solar panels
they guarantee prices paid to generate power for X years so you know you’ll get you investment back & also profits.
we have nothing from both parties cause of oil lobbyists controlling both sides
hugs!
Yes and no.
In the space race the government was the only game in town. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
Yes. Fossil fuels take thousands to millions of years to make. The supply is limited, and eventually we will run out. The sooner we develop and switch to renewable energy sources the better off we will be.
What makes you reckon tey are not providing grants?
yes
Obama has a plot to use $15 billion a year (about 8% what we spend on Iraq) to set up research grants, help companies bring technolgies to production and set up prizes for new and innovative technologies
in the past the US has been very sucessful when doing this
in developing medicines and such
Yes. The govt. should set the example for others to follow by adjusting the "fleet" to include mostly hybrid or electric cars.
Hydrogen fuel is a bust. Not only is it incredibly hazardous (see Hindenberg) it is just another way for a car owner to have to buy fuel from a filling station…eg: being beholden to whatever amount of money they want to charge for it.
Electric cars are a better option and eliminates the need for ‘fueling’ stations around the US and can be plugged in at home.
As with anything else, R&D grants should be issued for new alternative energy options.
Really, they already do. They have money in cleaner coal options, alternative fuels such as bio diesel and ethanol fuels. Also competitions such as Challenge X are using college students to design and market hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles.
It is here just not as much media coverage as the space race was.
There is no race. Brazil already won.
The U.S. government should only offer small term tax credits. There is private enterprise incentive to improve fuel efficiency in a practical and marketable way. No more government employees to "help." Grants come with too much oversight. It is not worth the burden of a band of incompetents coming on the premises to the "help" the technology people in private industry.
YES.
YES.
YES.
America really did used to be the "leader" and we were ahead in lots of areas.
We are NOT any longer.
If there was any kind of push from the citizenry, we could force our elected officials to SPEND OUR TAX DOLLARS in a manner which really benefitted the country as a whole.
Instead of a select few parasites. Which is what’s occurring presently.
They should have done that 30 years ago and we would not be in this mess now. Technology for cars that run on alternative fuels has been available for 50 or more years. Why are they pretending its such a mystery now?
You will probably find that the private sector will take the lead in this because I don’t believe our government wants to upset the apple cart. Why are we proposing autos that get 50 mpg when there are vehicles that don’t require gasoline at all. They are already in use in other countries. Why not push for that? The government does not want the U.S. off of oil.
Yes, but even with the govt barely doing this, more and more fuel efficent cars are coming out anyway. Even the car companies are seeing the writing on the wall and changing their habits to develop better cars.
My dad was a physicist. He supported JFK. He took me out when sputnik went up, and showed mme the small ball of light streaking across the sky and said "too terrible man will never go there"
When Kennedy said that we would make a commitment to go to the moon by the end of th edecade, he laughed and said, "Now we’re throwing excellent money after terrible". In 1969, we landed on the moon, and my dad shrugged and said "Son, it just shows you that no matter how ridiculous and thought sounds, there’s some idiot out there who never heard it was ridiculous does it."
Consider, that in 80 years we went from horse drawn wagons to the moon. Why should we reckon that a different form of transportation energy is not possible in a decade?
Because people say it’s ridiculous, and we believe them.
Up until recently, a certain segment of the population scoffed at global warming, now we have Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich, and Robert Dole making ads for a greener America which, by the way, will reduce the use of hydrocarbons.
I’m not prepared to accept that we cannot meet the challenge of alternative fuels. It may seem ridiculous now, but applying Kennedy’s ten year standard served us well before, and the same commitment noow could mean enrgy independence in my lifetime.