# House Passes Renewable Energy Investment, Gas Price Legislation



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

The Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act would increase the production of renewable fuels and electricity, and encourage greater energy efficiency.

More...


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

Gee, I will get a little more excited about this when BOTH houses of congress pass it, and when GW doesn't veto it, and it actually becomes law.

We have gone through this several times already this year with nothing to show for it.


----------



## Manntis (May 22, 2008)

unclematt said:


> Gee, I will get a little more excited about this when BOTH houses of congress pass it, and when GW doesn't veto it, and it actually becomes law.
> 
> We have gone through this several times already this year with nothing to show for it.


I can't understand why POTUS vetoes this sort of thing.


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

Heard today that we have Jimmy Catta to thank for making it illegal to build/run, a Breeder Reactor in this country.

Another democrat misstep in this plan....


----------



## Perditor (May 26, 2008)

Coley said:


> Heard today that we have Jimmy Catta to thank for making it illegal to build/run, a Breeder Reactor in this country.
> 
> Another democrat misstep in this plan....


Not exactly... in '77 Carter called for a deferral in construction because of his concerns regarding nuclear proliferation. Reagon started it back up in '81, but the senate wound up terminating it in '83.

Now, what I'd like to know, is why the senate killed it...

Let's hope that whoever gets into office this year, Republican or Democrat is not as compromised by ties to Big Oil like the current administration, and that they back the good parts of this bill and start giving more incentive's to EV's and less to huge gas hogs.


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

Coley said:


> Heard today that we have Jimmy Catta to thank for making it illegal to build/run, a Breeder Reactor in this country.
> 
> Another democrat misstep in this plan....


Riiiiiggghhhttt, a person who was office IN THE 70'S is responsible for all the missteps made since then? Sounds like another republican trying to blame someone other than those who are actually responsible...


----------



## Coley (Jul 26, 2007)

unclematt said:


> Riiiiiggghhhttt, a person who was office IN THE 70'S is responsible for all the missteps made since then? Sounds like another republican trying to blame someone other than those who are actually responsible...


No, I heard that on the Bob Brinker show "Money Talk".

He is a big proponet of nuclear power and had that on his Sat show.

Democrats haven't exactly set the world on fire with their ideas on
helping the power situation either.

All the two candidates on their side want to do, is rob big companies of their
profits and squander it away like ususal.

I guess we will find out after the next election......


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

Whether nuclear is even viable is questionable. Given the world's current rate of consumption, Dr Petrovik at ASU's Polytechnic campus, the world only contains 40 more years of uranium at the present rate. Of course, if we had started using more breeder reactors 30 years ago, might have 60 or 80 years left today. Then again, we might have more reactors using up all the uranium. Who knows. Uranium reactors don't make their own fuel, they only use fuel more efficiently. They still require that spent fuel be disposed of somehow. Breeder reactors aren't a sustainable technology.

Back to the article:
I doubt that OPEC is price fixing. Global oil production is nearly flat and global oil demand is increasing. That's why the prices are getting higher. Making matters worse is a devalued dollar. I don't see how we actually need price fixing to get ourselves into this trouble. 

Also, the article mentions that families are having trouble paying for transportation fuel. The solution that legislators propose is increased tax breaks for solar and wind. Earth to politicians. Those aren't transportation fuels. Not for most people anyway.  The long term solution is tax breaks and rebates for electric car purchases. Only then will we be able to take advantage of clean electricity.

I actually wrote one of my senators about this. His response was basically the same as GM's excuse for crushing the EV1. Sad.


----------



## Thalass (Dec 28, 2007)

How much are you guys paying for petrol over there? I read in the paper that there were protests and people reverting to horseback and writing songs and such at AU$0.92/L! At the moment we're creeping up towards an average of AU$1.60/L, and according to Gav's site they're paying NZ$2/L right now! And that works out to somewhere around US$5/Gal... 


It cost me nearly AU$80 to put 53L in my outback the other day. That's US$76 for 14gal! 

This is why I'm doing a conversion! hehe


----------



## elevatorguy (Jul 26, 2007)

In my area right now, 3.99 gal for reg unleaded and 4.65 for diesel.

Jerry


----------



## Mastiff (Jan 11, 2008)

Quoted from:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/bill.pdf



> Plug-in electric drive vehicle credit. The bill establishes a new credit for each qualified plug-in
> electric drive vehicle placed in service during each taxable year by a taxpayer. The base amount
> of the credit is $3,000. If the qualified vehicle draws propulsion from a battery with at least 5
> kilowatt hours of capacity, the credit amount is increased by $200, plus another $200 for each
> ...


So essentially No-ONE can get this tax credit yet.

It requires the vehicle have a minimum 5KWH battery pack, and that the "Manufacturer" of the vehicle make 60,000 of them before the tax credit can apply to that vehicle.

Furthermore it only applies to "Plug-In" electric vehicles so the Prius would need a much larger battery and Plug-In capabilities before it'd be qualified.


That's pathetic.
That means only manufactured electric vehicles can have this tax incentive, no DIY electric Vehicles.

Furthermore, currently there's no vehicles that I know of that Qualify for this.



The Tesla Roadster and the Phoenix Motorcars SUT have large enough batteries but they haven't manufactured *60,000* of them!

The Toyota Prius does not have a large enough battery or Plug-In abilities standard.

So, it'd take Tesla another few years probably 5+ years to build 60,000 of their Roadster before it's qualified for anyone to get this tax rebate.
That's assuming they started Mass-Producing their Sports-car.

That's IF they build 60,000 of their roadsters, I doubt they'll do that.

Even their new 4 door sedan they're developing, they won't be able to produce enough of them fast enough.


So, IMO this bill is completely useless.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

Actually, the bill is even more useless than you think because it doesn't apply to EVs at all. It only applies to plug-in hybrids. 

However, I do disagree with you about the bill being useless. As you pointed out, even if the bill did cover EVs, the manufacturer would need to manufacture 60,000 copies (or maybe have plans to make 60,000 of them?). That's what the tax incentive is for. This is like dangling a carrot in front of a horse. Make the technology more attractive, and demand will drive supply... hopefully.

Again, the bill does not include EVs. That's why I wrote my senator. If the bill does not pass the senate in its present form then hopefully its next iteration will include legislation for EVs that is similar to the current proposed legislation for plug-in hybrids.


----------

