[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by bogmonster

Why has nobody mentioned the obvious? The day before the federal tax holiday hits, the gas stations will raise their prices a magical 10-15 cents.

Why? it don’t affect there profit.

[defrey12]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

What stroke was that? What spigot was turned off?

Uhhh, in case you missed it…one of Joe’s first official acts was to kill the pipeline via Executive Order. Around 4000-5000 people lost their jobs that day, too…but that’s ok. If he hadn’t done that, we would not be stuck begging for and buying hi-priced Saudi oil and we’d have instead given our business to our neighbors to the north…for about half the cost! And we would be SELLING our surplus to Europe instead of them having to go to other guys. Got it?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yes, that chart was bit old----from 2015.

But the bottom line remains---once we "reduce fossil fuels", what have we accomplished??? Absolutely nothing except to those that have bought into the myth/scam of "global warming" hook, line and sinker. Now, if someone were to make the argument that our air would be cleaner if we didn't burn hydrocarbons, I would agree. But global warming????--total farce.

This topic is about the price of gas, not about climate change.

The price of gas is reduced when there's less of a demand/reliance on it. The oil companies charge more, because they CAN. Because so far, no one has said "nope - we'll just not use gas as much anymore, but thanks for playing."

When we increase renewables and alternatives to petroleum, we decrease the demand for petroleum. And the price of petroleum will go down. That's just basic economics.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by defrey12

Noticed your comment “distance & changing times”…not the issue, and EVs will undoubtedly be MUCH more inconvenient—2hr charge time to go another 200 miles. That’s a great idea for long trip vs a 10 minute fill time and 400 miles for ⛽️. The real issue is the fact that the power companies MUST STILL BURN SOME SORT OF FOSSIL FUEL to make electricity! Unless you’re in the west where hydro-electric rules. But those states still have to purchase more from coal burners (yes, they had to switch back from natural gas due to Washington’s interference) to meet their demand. Bottom line: There’s a worse carbon footprint for building and powering electric cars than sticking with what we know, and making it better. Oh! And don’t even get me started on what to do with the batteries once they wear out, which they will. Are we going to shoot them into space? THEY ARE CONSIDERED TOXIC WASTE by the EPA so they’re not going in land-fills. And what about the strip mining for lithium (required for those batteries) in South America and other places throughout the world? Go ahead…look it up. You could put many small American towns in those craters. But those things seems to matter not to “the enlightened”…EVs alone are NOT the cure. They have a place—inner city commuting—but outside of that application, they just are not practical and convenient—values close to the American heart. Just a lot political posturing and back room deals.

Water in southwest drying up, too many lawns and golf courses in desert, not to mention overpopulated. They had to create new intake on Hoover dam to supply Las Vegas, cause the one the built way back when sticking out of water by several feet. Even Denver trying to steal water from plat river form Nebraska water rights. If the had any brains in southwest desert They would outlaw grass lawns and plush golf courses.

[Moderator]

The next political comment closes the thread. Moderation has become weary.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

This topic is about the price of gas, not about climate change.

The price of gas is reduced when there's less of a demand/reliance on it. The oil companies charge more, because they CAN. Because so far, no one has said "nope - we'll just not use gas as much anymore, but thanks for playing."

When we increase renewables and alternatives to petroleum, we decrease the demand for petroleum. And the price of petroleum will go down. That's just basic economics.

Yes, TOTV monitor, o wait not you’re job.

So, how do you think renewables are produced? Fossil fuels.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by defrey12

Uhhh, in case you missed it…one of Joe’s first official acts was to kill the pipeline via Executive Order. Around 4000-5000 people lost their jobs that day, too…but that’s ok. If he hadn’t done that, we would not be stuck begging for and buying hi-priced Saudi oil and we’d have instead given our business to our neighbors to the north…for about half the cost! And we would be SELLING our surplus to Europe instead of them having to go to other guys. Got it?

The Keystone XL, is that the spigot he turned off? That wasn't a spigot at all.

You note that 4000-5000 people lost their jobs that day. Were those refinery workers processing the oil from that pipeline? Were they truckers transporting the fuel products that came out of the refinery? No.

The people who lost their jobs that day were the construction workers who would have been building the pipeline. No spigot was shut off; there was no spigot to shut off.

The Keystone XL pipeline expansion would have transported tar sands oil to refineries in the gulf. The output of those refineries would then be sported overseas, not a drop of fuel would be sent to US pumps.

Again, no spigot was shut off; there was no spigot to shut off. Got it?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Alright, but just WHO is buying and waiting for EVs? Certainly not the masses. Just a guess, but I would bet Californians and other bicoastal elites lead the pack along with young woke people with good jobs.

Also, a visit to the gas station-----3 minutes. A visit to the charging station----how many hours?????

Of course, all that will change in the future as costs come down, ranges go up, and battery life improves.

I see a future that includes gasoline use in cars.
But it ALSO includes MORE EVs and hydrogen-powered cars. Possibly even with solar panels on the roof to power the internal stuff like the radio, lights, cabin electrical system - maybe even the heater.

In fact I see a future with lots of hybrids, that utilize both electricity and gasoline.

I also see families having an EV for local needs, and a gas-powered vehicle - or perhaps more efficient rental company vehicles - for long distance driving.

No need to worry about where you'll charge your EV, if you only drive 10-15 miles away from home everywhere and can recharge when you get home.

I see a future where every town has at least one public charging station, so folks who DO prefer to have exclusively EV in town, can venture to the next town for a day trip, without worrying about running out of juice.

And yes I absolutely see the need for gas-powered cars. Long distance travel is important, especially for truckers. There's absolutely positively no way we'll be eliminating gas-powered vehicles. It just can't happen, unless we get rid of the trucking industry entirely. But we can rely LESS on gas, and MORE on EV and alternate fuels. Remember that big push for STEM education? Yeah - that means more engineers to study more efficient engine options that don't require gasoline. Maybe they'll be able to make an efficient, low-pollution diesel engine that uses the discarded used vegetable oil from fast-food joints. It's not a pipe dream - we've already figured out how to use the fresh stuff. It's just not very good for the environment. Yet.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

This topic is about the price of gas, not about climate change.

The price of gas is reduced when there's less of a demand/reliance on it. The oil companies charge more, because they CAN. Because so far, no one has said "nope - we'll just not use gas as much anymore, but thanks for playing."

When we increase renewables and alternatives to petroleum, we decrease the demand for petroleum. And the price of petroleum will go down. That's just basic economics.

Pretty obvious. However, currently just words.

Why cut off the current petroleum based products BEFORE the renewals and alternatives are available?

How can the public be encouraged to change when the "green" ways are not available in adequate supply.....and cost?

Just basics of supply and demand!!!!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Pretty obvious. However, currently just words.

Why cut off the current petroleum based products BEFORE the renewals and alternatives are available?

How can the public be encouraged to change when the "green" ways are not available in adequate supply.....and cost?

Just basics of supply and demand!!!!

As long as the oil companies have control over the conversation, there will be resistance to even trying. "Why bother trying if oil will just win anyway" is a defeatist attitude. There are already alternatives to SOME petroleum products, and SOME gasoline-powered vehicles.

Popularity of them is increasing. You can think locally on this, without even looking at the national picture. More electric golf carts. More re-usable grocery bags. More people choosing refillable household products rather than single-use ones. More water filters, fewer disposable water bottles.

All of these things are alternatives that *reduce* rather than replace petroleum consumption. And it's already happening right here in the Villages. We could set the standard. Or we can say "nah...we don't care" and pretend we're not already shifting our attitude so younger generations don't bother even trying to follow the example.

I don't have kids or grandkids. I have no horse in that race. Your mileage may vary. Ironic quip intended.

[rogerrice60]

Couple years ago we produced so much oil the spot price went to $0.
Trump filled our Strategic Oil Reserves at a very low price...

[Tvflguy]

I rcvd an infraction for what I believe was a very mild comment. Mod considered it political. I’m quite new here and very confused how they may pick and choose what is and not.

Trying to tread lightly here. Are they biased or selective. I kinda feel violated. I look thru this thread, and think “Why me”?!!

[rogerrice60]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I concur with the responder who posted :

9,000 parcels of federal land is available for oil companies to LEASE, but the government won't issue any PERMITS to actually drill there. That's like telling a landlord that they can build a new apartment building but they are not allowed to rent the apartments. A 3 month hiatus in the 18 cent/gal. federal tax is like putting a band aid on a chain saw wound. The answer is to open the Keystone pipeline, issue permits for drilling, and tell the ________(fill in the blank) that global warming (due to man's activity) is a myth.

Excellent & Accurate Commentary

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by rogerrice60

Excellent & Accurate Commentary

Drill baby drill is the answer to high gas costs

[bogmonster]

No, it’s when people are conditioned to pay $6 a gallon, they will still pay it. The stations will just pocket the free money.