Empulse Minus the R

[00049 (AKA SopFu)]

However, the biggest subsidy of all paid out to the fossil fuel industries - oil, coal, natural gas - is that they don't have to worry about the downstream effects of our oil habit.

Could not have said it better myself.

[bigd]

You do bring up good points, and don’t think I am defending all points of “big oil”. I was stating that we get caught up in saying things that just are not true, Demonizing "big oil".  I am going to try to give my view on the points you made and understand I do not want to get into an argument. If you have better reasons for what you think I will be the 1st to admit you are right. Well maybe not the 1st LOL

[Where the tax deductions become problems is when they outlive their intended purpose, are abused in ways contrary to the intention, or are special purpose loopholes pushed through with limited or no discusson.
-----I agree with what you are saying on face value. My question is (since you didn’t give a specific law) does this law only benefit the oil company. I’m sure every loophole you are referring to is used by all business, including the electric ones.

These tax benefits add up to an estimated $70 billion over 10 years.
-----This is my main point, this is not a subside but rather a tax benefit. The Govt does not “write a check” however, this is NOT the case with solar and wind. Not only does the solar and wind get the same benefits but they receive true subsidie.

The oil industry is rather mature and pretty healthy, financially-speaking. I'm disinclined to give them special tax breaks to help them out with oil well exploration, give them a break on royalties paid producing oil on American soil, or allow them to access to special tax loopholes on royalties paid out to access foreign fields.
-----Again another point that on face value sounds good, however, if you dig deeper you realize these loopholes are used to make the batteries of the EV’s. I do think that the bigger difference between our views may be in the key words you used “mature and pretty healthy, financially-speaking” I am not inclined to punish a company for success with tax increases.  If I am not happy with the company then I don’t use its product. And I don’t mean that I don’t use it when it is convenient to not use(all or nothing).

The "substantial risk" of seeking new energy sources (= new oil fields) is that they'll pull a BP and then settle with the federal government to limit their liability.
-----If I am not mistaken, they did pay to “clean up” the mess, they even reimbursed fisherman for lost wages. Is it enough? Some will say yes and some will say no. Ill wait for your response to this one LOL.

However, the biggest subsidy of all paid out to the fossil fuel industries - oil, coal, natural gas - is that they don't have to worry about the downstream effects of our oil habit.
[/quote]
-----This is implied to all companies in the energy market and many other companies, not just big oil. Think about all the batteries and where they will end up. Think about the parts of the EV when they are wrecked. Tires on your EV. We can go on and on here.

I hope that you don’t think I am trying to say you are wrong or argue with you (debating is fine). Id like for all the negative consequences of the fossil fuel to not exist. In a perfect world that would be the case, Just not a perfect world

[00049 (AKA SopFu)]

This is my main point, this is not a subside but rather a tax benefit.

Tax Benefits can also be referred to as "Tax Expenditures," or in other words, money that would otherwise have been collected is simply not collected to incentivize behavior. It's only different from subsidies in that people/businesses that get subsidies often would not otherwise pay any or enough taxes, and therefore have to get an actual check from the Government for the behavior to be incentivized.

Think about all the batteries and where they will end up. Think about the parts of the EV when they are wrecked. Tires on your EV. We can go on and on here.

Hopefully, after their useful transportation life, our batteries will go to some sort of grid storage for a number of years, and then be recycled into some other form energy storage. The rest of the vehicle is at least no more dangerous than any ICE to dispose of. I do agree that the initial collection of battery material is pretty nasty. But, in theory, the material can be reused many times over. (easy to say now when Li Ion is at the top of the heap, but may not be the case when the next chemistry that does not use lithium is discovered)

[Virtually Yours]

We've been hijacked...

[860]

...I do not want to get into an argument. If you have better reasons for what you think I will be the 1st to admit you are right. Well maybe not the 1st LOL...

... I’m sure every loophole you are referring to is used by all business, including the electric ones....

Not to sound too sarcastic, but my wife and I own a business, and I'd love to figure out how our business could use all of these special tax laws that only oil and gas companies benefit from.  These are subsidies that are currently listed in legislation for elimination:

 Eliminate royalty relief, including for deep gas and deep water production, 43 USC 1337, 42 USC 15904 and 15905 (Sec 3) - $.01 billion
 Ultra deep water research program repeal, 42 USC 16371 (Sec 5) - $.100 billion
 Uncap 75 million for spill liability and 350 million for pipeline clean-up for tar sands, 33 USC 2704 (Sec 6)
 Eliminate enhanced oil recovery credit, 26 USC 43 (Sec 14)
 Eliminate marginal wells credit, 26 USC 45 I (Sec 14)
 Eliminate deduction for tertiary injectant 26 USC 193 (Sec 14) - $.100 billion – allows deduction for advanced oil recovery investments
 Eliminate special rule for oil, gas wells, 26 USC 461(i)(2) (Sec 14)
 Eliminate percentage depletion, 26 USC 613(A) (Sec 14) - $11.465 billion – allows oil and gas companies to deduct 15 percent of their sales revenues to reflect declining value of their investment, without regard to the actual decline in value of their investment.
 Eliminate special depreciation for Alaska natural gas pipeline, 26 USC 168(e)(3) (Sec 14)
 Amortization for pollution control, 26 USC 169 (Sec 14) - $1.6 billion
 Eliminate refinery upgrade deduction, 26 USC 179(c) (Sec 14) - $1.6 billion
 Eliminate expensing of capital costs to comply with EPA rules for refineries, 26 USC 179(B) (Sec 14)
 Eliminate environmental remediation expense deduction, 26 USC 198 (Sec 14) – prevents oil/gas industry from taking deduction for certain environmental clean-up costs.
 Eliminate intangible drilling oil and gas deduction, 26 USC 263 (Sec 14) - $13.902 billion – This provision allows oil and gas companies to immediately deduct the cost of things like wages and supplies, lowering their taxes, instead of normal process of deducting these costs over time.
 Eliminate marginal wells production credit 5 year carryback 26 USC 39(a)(3) (Sec 14)
 Eliminate oil and gas Arbitrage bonds exemption 26 USC 148(b)(4 )(Sec 14) - $.086 billion
 Eliminate alternative fuel credit for natural gas 26 USC 30C(c) (Sec 15) - $.176 billion
 7 year amortization, 26 USC 167(h) (Sec 16) - $1.4 billion – tax break created in 2005 to allow certain oil and gas corporations to more quickly amortize incidental drilling costs, reducing taxes paid. This proposal would eliminate the current 2 year amortization and extend it to 7 years.
 Natural gas gathering lines 15 year property, 26 USC 168(e)(3) (Sec 17) - $.5 billion – eliminates special provision allowing for 7 year depreciation for natural gas pipelines, returning to the standard 15 year depreciation.
 Increase Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Financing, 26 USC 4611(c)(2), and Apply Oil Spill taxes to tar sands
oil, 26 USC 4612(a) (Sec 24 and 25) -$.717 billion – extend this tax to tar sands oils which are currently exempt from it.
 Deny deduction for oil spill costs, Part IX, subchapter B chapter 1 IRC (Sec 26) - $6.792 billion – BP was able to deduct from its tax liability billions of dollars for
certain costs related to remediation from the Gulf oil spill. This provision would ensure that corporations
responsible for oil spill clean-up and damages do not get a tax break for paying to clean-up their mess.
 Recover lost royalties on offshore drilling through excise tax (Sec 27) - $10.644 billion – In the 1990’s certain offshore leases were provided without requiring royalty payments. This excise tax of 13 percent would ensure that corporations not already paying royalties pay their fair share.
 Dual Taxpayer Deduction, 26 USC 901 (Sec 23) - $10.724 billion (U.S. Chamber of Commerce says “nearly all” dual capacity taxpayers are oil and gas corporations) – allows oil and gas companies that operate overseas to classify royalty payments to foreign governments as taxes, thereby reducing their U.S. taxes because foreign taxes, unlike royalty payments, are fully deductible.

[860]

...If I am not mistaken, [BP] did pay to “clean up” the mess, they even reimbursed fisherman for lost wages. Is it enough? Some will say yes and some will say no...

BP paid for cleanup, and then you and I paid BP back 35% of what BP paid in a the form of a $6.792 billion dollar tax refund.  They took a tax deduction for money they paid to clean up their mess.  In my opinion, BP did not pay enough.  BP only paid 65% of these bills, and we paid the rest.   

In my opinion, they should have paid this all themselves.

[Brammofan]

Bigd, you should post an introduction in the Welcome forum so we know a little about who you are, what you ride, and which oil company you work for.

[protomech]

Hey now, be nice : P

Not to dogpile, but there's a ton of special-case loopholes for oil. Electrics receive a number of direct subsidies, but my understanding is that the special-case tax credits are relatively limited in number and largely consumer-facing.

Subsidizing electrics and renewables more favorably than oil (if you just look at direct subsidies and tax cuts) isn't about punishing a more mature industry. It's about capitalizing on an opportunity to become the world leaders in a new area of technical development, it's about reducing those downstream losses (which are large unaccounted for), it's about finding alternatives to continuing to deplete a relatively finite resource, and it's about gradually reducing our dependence - and by extension, the world's dependence - upon nations that are actively hostile to the US.

BP cut a deal with the US government to limit their liability. They're definitely paying - and probably will continue to pay over 20 years - but I recall that the liability limitation was set well below estimates of the damage.

There's no such thing as a free lunch in the energy world. The US grid is largely powered by coal and natural gas, which have distinct environmental impacts of their own. We are bringing more and more renewables online each year, which does help to clean the EV long tailpipe (vs catalytic converters in gas vehicles, which wear and are typically rated for 150k miles).

Recycling batteries is pretty effective - lead acid in particular has a remarkable recycling rate. Toyota pays a bounty for Prius NiMH battery packs - I doubt if any Prius battery pack has ever made it to the landfill. The earlier Zero motorcycles used batteries that contained no toxic materials and could be disposed of in the landfill; not sure that's true any more for the 2012 bikes.

The amount of lithium in lithium-ion packs is fairly small, around 5% by weight. Lithium is cheap enough (read: common enough) that it's not directly profitable to recycle the battery packs. So consumers may eventually have to pay a small recycling fee to dispose of the bike batteries when they die .. but generally speaking, the battery packs are highly recyclable (copper, plastics, lithium, manganese, cobalt, nickel).

[flar]

Tesla documents the life cycle of their batteries:

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/teslas-closed-loop-battery-recycling-program

It's Roadster-focused.  It will likely apply to the Model S too, but a quick search didn't find anything more specific about Model S (thought I didn't search too hard)...