edmundoab
Diamond Member
when I left Michigan,
it was highest at 2.55 / gallon
dont know what it is now considering its summer.
it was highest at 2.55 / gallon
dont know what it is now considering its summer.
AgaBoogaBoo
Lifer
- Feb 16, 2003
- 26,108
- 5
- 81
prices dropped recently over Memorial Day and have stayed that way. Went from cheapest being $2.33/gal for 87 octane to $2.25/gal for 87 octane. Btw, 'here' is Yavapai County, Arizona.
so how about we take all the tree-huggers and make them chip in for everyone's gas. I'd say having them all pay 50% for every gas fill-up is suitable until they recind and allow us to get at the oil that is ours and is on land that no one really even uses or lives on (tundra needs protection? there's plenty of it, so I doubt drilling will seriously hurt the wildlife).
Spike
Diamond Member
- Aug 27, 2001
- 6,770
- 1
- 81
I do like seeing us protect what we have, but the tundra is pushing it. A few new refiners and ALOT of new nuclear reactors would be a good start. Thats one area the freaking French are a whole lot smarter than we are on, they actually USE nuclear power and use it well. Their general public even excepts that safe reactors can actually be built! Now if we could convice the masses here we might get off that dirty coal and oil usage, at least for energy production...
-spike
Half of that may be true, but half is just ignorant (and therefore curable.)
1. The total amount of oil in ANWAR is less that the savings that would be produced by increasing the Corporate Average Fuel economy by 2 mpg. It would take ten years before oil from ANWAR made it to market after they started drilling, and most of it would probably be exported, not used stateside. Most oil produced in Alaska is exported.
2. Any cost analysis that implies that coal or nuclear power plants are more cost effective than wind power blatantly ignores the costs involved in the hazardous wastes produced, as well as ignoring rising fuel costs. One fifth of women of child bearing age have enough mercury in their system to kill a fetus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49896-2004Oct20.htm l) and this is primarily due to coal. If you're going to estimate the cost of storing radioactive waste, be sure to calculate it out for a few million years at least, not the pathetically short amount of time they use in estimates before building them. If you're that willing to pass the costs on to people's kids, why not burn babies to generate energy instead of coal? The difference in effect is only one of scale.
3. Oil, natural gas, coal, and fissionable materials are all non-renewable materials. Trying to keep an energy infrastructure based on them is extremely shortsighted. Eventually annual supply will become inelastic, and cannot be increased further. If you do not understand why this is inevitable then try looking up "non-renewable", as a lot of people don't seem to understand it, including Dubya. When the inelastic supply of oil matches the rising inelastic demand for it, then you will have price spikes that make this past year's seem like nothing. Whether oil supply has peaked already or is about to is both debatable and irrelevant. If it hasn't peaked then it is about to, and there is no way that drilling more can keep up with wells drying up.
4. You were spot on with nimby and shortsighted congress. You can thank the tax loophole on poor mpg SUV's for your high gas prices. If they had instead put a similar tax loophole on high mpg vehicles and vehicles that use biodiesel, e85, or any other fuel that is more than %50 renewable, then this problem would be both milder and transient. Instead it is only going to get much, much worse.
Slow adoption of wind energy is partly do to a highly vocal and highly ignorant minority of nimby who disapprove of their appearance, and spread misinformation trying to paint them in a negative light. Wind power displaces natural gas fired power, and natural gas displaces oil use for winter heat. Connect the dots and you'll realize that greater government support of wind power would have you paying less at the pump.
5. If you don't want to pay so much for gas, then get a car that doesn't use it. Some people with diesel cars get used oil from restaurants, filter it, and never have to pay for gas. (diesel engines were originally designed to run on vegetable oil for those who didn't know.) This would be especially economical for any of you who own or operate a restaurant.
6. The hypocrisy of dubya is most evident in his support of coal and lack of support for wind, as he claims to value the life of a fetus yet does nothing to prevent environmental contamination that leads to birth defects and miscarriage.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/Overview.html
"Wind can indeed be counted upon--there will always be some wind somewhere--if there are enough stations widely dispersed geographically."
DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,454
- 41
- 91
quakefiend420
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2004
- 14,685
- 1
- 76
In April the Chevron station we go to was $2.46 per gallon. Almost 2 months later currently at $2.15 per gallon.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
yea enviromentalists are full of it. they are against everything. higher density housing that saves wilderness and allows for effective public transport? no! urban spral? no!! immigration reform since more people = more stress on envirment? no! obstructionists with no goals beyond the wailing about evil humans.
Last fill on my Expediton was over $55, and it still had a third of a tank in it, so I don't see how filling a Honda @ 13 gal is a problem. 
Now my friggin boat is another story. It takes $225 just to run some buddies out on the lake for a few hours. I think the days of, "you guys just buy the beer" are over. Now it's gonna be; "Gas, Grass or Ass", nobody rides for nothin! LOL
Now my friggin boat is another story. It takes $225 just to run some buddies out on the lake for a few hours. I think the days of, "you guys just buy the beer" are over. Now it's gonna be; "Gas, Grass or Ass", nobody rides for nothin! LOL
It is roughly $2.33 per gallon where I live (for lowest grade), but there are some stations as low as $2.27.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
I'm not sure that drilling off the coast and ANWAR would provide all that much oil for us. I'm actually opposed to doing it because I think we should hold on to the oil in those places as a reserve for when the oil starts to run dry elsewhere in the world. There's only so much oil and eventually the world will have sucked it dry.
I'm all in favor of building new generation nuclear plants.
One issue that no one ever brings up is the issue of population growth. If the U.S. population had been stabilized years ago and we had, say, 250 million people in the country right now, might the prices and demand for oil be a bit lower? Aside from having fewer drivers, the U.S. demand might be lower since there would be less traffic congestion and shorter commuting times. Visit http://www.numbersusa.com for more info about population stats. I think NumbersUSA claimed that the U.S. had reached zpg--zero population growth back in the 1970's or that we would have but for our mass immigration policies.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
That's the biggest thing. The environmentalists claim they support a better environment yet at the same time they don't want to touch population and immigration issues because they also believe in altruism. You would think they would realize that a 20% decrease in pollution and environmental stress per person would be offset by a 15% increase in population.
One of the interesting issues is why the Sierra Club, which has had internal fights over this issue, ended up opposing giving any credence to the issue of population growth and immigration. Interesting reading:
http://www.vdare.com/walker/050203_sierra.htm
As we learned in the recent Sierra Club funding scandal, Pope has a lot on the line, namely his access to the fabulous wealth of open-borders zealot and Wall Street investor David Gelbaum.
Gelbaum has already donated over $100 million to the Sierra Club with the stipulation: "I did tell Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
If that's true, then wow! Here's a link to a group of environmentalists who want to change all of that.
http://www.susps.org/
Quote from the SUSPS page:
Worst of all, the U.S. population continues to grow by about 3 million people per year, of which nearly half are immigrants, and two-thirds of the growth is a result of immigration, if the children of immigrants are included. Our forests continue to be clearcut to provide construction materials, our groundwater is depleted to provide water for our growing population, we grow more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil, and we are unable to reduce our output of greenhouse gases, all thanks to our burgeoning population.
1. There is no logical reason why limiting immigration would have a net negative impact on the environment unless you are starting with the assumption that once in america, people can't help but live in a way that is more harmful to the environment than before. Immigration does not effect total world population.
Perhaps you were thinking of procreation? Yes it would be logical for environmentalists to push for mandatory sterilization of anyone who has more than two children, and government funded sterilization for anyone 18 or older who desires it. For that matter, anti-abortionists should be clammoring for government funded sterilization for anyone who gets an abortion, to prevent repeat offenders. To do otherwise is extreme hypocrisy. Furthermore the "a woman should control her own body" camp should be up in arms over birth control requiring a prescription, and against places that won't give birth control without a physical exam. FYI contraceptives have been shown to help prevent cancer, and a pap smear has no bearing on if it is safe for a person to take birth control. There is no good reason for birth control to not be over the counter. For that matter, poor people should be able to buy it with food stamps since that would ultimately save the government money.
2. The main reason organized environmental groups don't do anything for population control is that there are other, less controversial means of helping the environment that benefit everyone without taking away peoples freedom. Like switching to renewable fuels and wind energy, and replacing trucks with trains as the means of cargo distribution.
3. If we adjust society such that the pollution per person is lower in the US than anywhere else, then logically allowing immigration would decrease pollution globally.
Perhaps you were thinking of procreation? Yes it would be logical for environmentalists to push for mandatory sterilization of anyone who has more than two children, and government funded sterilization for anyone 18 or older who desires it. For that matter, anti-abortionists should be clammoring for government funded sterilization for anyone who gets an abortion, to prevent repeat offenders. To do otherwise is extreme hypocrisy. Furthermore the "a woman should control her own body" camp should be up in arms over birth control requiring a prescription, and against places that won't give birth control without a physical exam. FYI contraceptives have been shown to help prevent cancer, and a pap smear has no bearing on if it is safe for a person to take birth control. There is no good reason for birth control to not be over the counter. For that matter, poor people should be able to buy it with food stamps since that would ultimately save the government money.
2. The main reason organized environmental groups don't do anything for population control is that there are other, less controversial means of helping the environment that benefit everyone without taking away peoples freedom. Like switching to renewable fuels and wind energy, and replacing trucks with trains as the means of cargo distribution.
3. If we adjust society such that the pollution per person is lower in the US than anywhere else, then logically allowing immigration would decrease pollution globally.
what's with the constant gas price bitching??? if you can't afford the gas, then don't buy the car, or land-boat suv.
Exactly!
Also those peeps driving little Kia's who take forever just to get up to 25mph, when I'm behind them in my V-8 really pissme off. I also throw half eaten steaks down the garbage disposal.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Most of us wouldn't give a fvck if our passenger vehicles hadn't had a net _DECREASE_ in MPG in the past twenty years.
The occasional whine about gas prices I can understand. If you have a truck for work or you're on a tiny income and doing the best you can, but for 90% of the people out there STFU; you're driving a vehicle that gets sh*ty gas mileage and you have only yourself to blame. And yes, that includes me, which is why I rarely bitch about gas prices. If I didn't like it I wouldn't be driving a minivan on the one hand and a fairly power sedan that requires 91 on the other.
Further, this "We need more oil" instead of more efficient vehicles is the exact line of thought that causes most people in this country to have sh*ty embarrassing personal finances. Instead of lowering output people think that they need to increase income. But that's hardly the solution. If they make more money they just end up wasting more. Same thing with vehicles. Cut your consumption first and then talk to me about maybe lowering the price of a barrel of oil, otherwise shut it! LEARN TO BUDGET, BITCH!
I'm done
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter