How is gas 'subsidized' in the USA?

[Xema]

@constantine

You do a little bit of damage to the road every time you drive. That damage builds up over time and needs to be repaired. Everyone, whether they drive a little, or a lot, or not at all, pays for these damages to be repaired.

This argument should take some notice of the gasoline taxes collected from motorists, which are not negligible. It obvious that at least some of the cost of roads is borne by those who drive.

[bump]

@justwannano

Several years ago the government dictated a clean air act. This forced the expense of adding a catalitic converter to your automobile.
The result was that poorer grades of gasoline, those containing sulphur, could be extracted from old wells considered played out and sold.

A subsity? Probably not. But certainly a windfall for petro companies.

Huh? Gasoline isn’t extracted straight from the ground, crude oil is, then it is refined into gasoline, diesel, etc… Even if they were using lower grade crude for gasoline production, they’d still refine it to meet certain standards, and sulfur content is one of them. They’ve been reducing sulfur content in gasoline since the 1940’s, long before catalytic converters.

And, in any event, catalytic converters are used to reduce/eliminate unburned hydrocarbon emissions, not sulfur compounds, which tend to ‘poison’ catalytic converters.

Catalytic converter

http://www.che.lsu.edu/COURSES/4205/2000/Mattson/HDS.htm

Hardly a windfall for petroleum companies…

[justwannano]

@bump

Huh? Gasoline isn’t extracted straight from the ground, crude oil is, then it is refined into gasoline, diesel, etc… Even if they were using lower grade crude for gasoline production, they’d still refine it to meet certain standards, and sulfur content is one of them. They’ve been reducing sulfur content in gasoline since the 1940’s, long before catalytic converters.

And, in any event, catalytic converters are used to reduce/eliminate unburned hydrocarbon emissions, not sulfur compounds, which tend to ‘poison’ catalytic converters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter

http://www.che.lsu.edu/COURSES/4205/2000/Mattson/HDS.htm

Hardly a windfall for petroleum companies…

I see where you got the poisoned converter information,{quote}
The CoMo/Al2O3 catalyst is poisoned by H2S and there is generally no method for regeneration other than running straight hydrogen through the reactor.{quote}

But I’m not sure they were refering to the automobile catalytic converter.
My information is sort of hearsay. I had a buddy that worked for a oil well safety company back in the early 80s. I spent a few days with him in the oil patch in Wyoming where we opened an old well so it could be tested for possible reuse.
As I understood it then the new regulations caused a great stir in reviving old wells.

[justwannano]

BTW
High sulphur content is pretty common in Wyoming.

[constantine]

@Xema

This argument should take some notice of the gasoline taxes collected from motorists, which are not negligible. It obvious that at least some of the cost of roads is borne by those who drive.

Ok, I’m starting to feel like we are starting to circle the same point over and over.

Yes, correct, the gasoline taxes are “not negligible”. But these cover only some of the significant costs of roads. They don’t cover all of these costs. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s the whole point that has now been repeated several times in this thread. The gasoline taxes do not cove the costs of maintaining roads, buidling new roads, and paying for police to police the roads.

Since the taxpayers pick up the tab, we (correctly) say that the taxpayers subsidize (albeit indirectly) the activity of driving. Put another way, drivers externalize some of the costs of driving.

[msmith537]

@constantine

When you drive a car, society incurs costs. You do not pay all, or even close to all, of these costs. These are not just sunk costs, but ongoing costs. You do a little bit of damage to the road every time you drive. That damage builds up over time and needs to be repaired. Everyone, whether they drive a little, or a lot, or not at all, pays for these damages to be repaired. When you drive you make it that much more necessary to have a traffic officer to monitor the road. These may seem like small effects when described this way, but they add up to huge costs for society. The governments spend huge sums, not just building roads, but maintaining them.

I understand this, however my point is that these costs would need to be paid in the same way if cars ran on gas or on Neslie Quick. They are “sunk” in our thought model in the sense that society will have these roads and related costs regardless of the form of transportation used on them.