It was meant for hydrogen research. From what I can remember most was going to Universities and private companies as research grants.
Did you read the other parts?
- Bush’s Fiscal Year 2006 budget proposes “$354 million for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) renewable energy programs—a 5.6 percent reduction from the proposed 2005 budget…The overall decrease in DOE renewable energy funding…reflects a reduction in spending on other renewable technologies such as solar, geothermal, and bioenergy.” Union of Concerned Scientists, February 22, 2005.
- “Research and development funding for geothermal and hydropower has been eliminated [in Bush’s FY2007 budget]. The FY07 budget request for research and development for wind…is a $930,000 (2 percent) cut from last year’s request. … The 2007 budget also proposes cutting almost two-thirds of the $23 million designated for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in the 2002 Farm Bill.” Union of Concerned Scientists, February 13, 2006.
- President Bush’s Fiscal Year 2008 budget proposes to cut research funds for wind, eliminate them for geothermal energy, and leave funding for solar stagnant. U.S. Department of Energy, February 5, 2007.
- President Bush threatens to veto the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act (H.R. 2776), which includes tax incentives for producers and homeowners to employ renewable energy technologies, and the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 3221), which includes a 15 percent renewable electricity standard. Statement of Administration Policy, August 3, 2007.
- President Bush threatens to veto the Energy Independence and Security Act because it includes a renewable electricity standard and renewable energy tax credits funded by the elimination of several tax breaks for big oil companies. Statement of Administration Policy, December 7, 2007.
Sounds like he's against research AND incentives for
private implementation of this technology...
I went on the link and found the $4.3 Billion quote. The American Progress lists the NYT as their source. Problem is the NYT never states "$4.3 Billion" in their story. The article states:
"Meanwhile, both houses conspired in some spectacular giveaways. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would shower billions in undeserved tax breaks on the same companies..."
Oil companies definitely did get some kind of tax breaks which I agree sounds rather silly right about now. I would need to know what the tax breaks were for or designed to do. Usually they are designed to increase economic activity. If that was the case then the tax breaks failed miserably.
There were some interesting bits in the NYT article however:
"the tax provisions are far more hospitable to energy efficiency and renewable fuels than earlier versions of the bill, and include substantial incentives for buyers of fuel-efficient hybrid cars.
More important in the long run, however, may be two provisions, buried deep in the bill, that are aimed at developing new energy technologies. One provision would encourage the development and commercial application of biofuels from agricultural products that, much like corn-based ethanol, might someday be used as a substitute for gasoline. The other provision is aimed at developing new clean-coal technologies to turn coal into a gas and, more important, capture emissions of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming.
Well I hope everyone comes to their senses and realizes just how
disasterous ethanol production (at preasent) is to the cost of both oil AND food. The latter is already an expensive commodity in 3rd World countries... but we only care when the former becomes too expensive for
us.
As for the tax breaks, it's not so much what they cost, but who they went to. Why are we giving them to oil companies? They have no incentive in developing that technology, so why pretend like they're our only source?
There are others we can tap.
I'll bet your University has engineering projects designed around using hydrogen engine research.
Nah. We're too specialized and lack a lot of advanced equipment.
I know one professor is doing research on balast-less ships, which not only
improves the fuel economy of preasent hulls but ALSO saves local ecosystems from foreign pathogens that usually get carried and discharged from the standard balasts.
He has to do it off campus in Michigan because we even lack equipment necessary for contemporary naval engineering research... AND WE'RE A NAVAL ENGINEERING COLLEGE! The school is too busy paying for a football team that couldn't win in the high school league
.
