Where do we expect gas prices to be later this month, now that election is over?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Where do you see gas prices heading one month after election day?

  • going lower

    Votes: 22 59.5%
  • up 25c

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • up 50c

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • up 75c

    Votes: 3 8.1%
  • up $1.00+

    Votes: 6 16.2%

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,049
1,989
126
Ever heard of short term goals and long term goals not necessarily being the same?

Or it that too much complexity for you?

Short or long term, both are risky schemes by the democrats led by old man Biden to try to foist electrics on people and give them no choice otherwise. And no, I am not going to use mass transportation. I did that early in life and I never want that again. Too many damn weirdos out there.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic and Pohemi

manly

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
10,763
1,916
126
But people don't only have to just look to BEVs. We'd be better off if people made better choices like picking a hybrid sedan or a PHEV compared to the best selling pick-up truck in the US - those choices would better protect consumers from huge spikes in gas prices too, because they would just be using less at the pump to begin with (bonus - we'd also be able to make limited battery supplies go further in the short term). Or the fact that most trips are less than a few miles, so shifting transportation mode-share would be another avenue. However, that all gets intertwined with a whole big thing on CAFE standards and generally bad land-use/transit policies that I don't want to derail the thread with.

Though short-term gas prices might make some look to electric vehicles, I bet from a market perspective, because buying an automobile is a relatively one-off event, sustained increases in prices (along with actual vehicle availability) are probably needed to really drive behavioral and political changes in the 1-2 year time frame.
Thanks, you're quite right. One of the travesties of the U.S. auto market is that very few of the "light trucks" sold have a hybrid drive train. Even the ones that do (say RAV4 or CR-V) have good, but not great fuel efficiency. Even so, all light trucks should have had a hybrid option since a few years ago; not now, not in the future.

The F-150 Lightning seems great, but a hybrid F-150 that could squeeze out 38 mpg would be a nice alternative to ICE as well, at least for the next 5 years.

You may be right about the market effect of sustained high gas prices, but that burden would be borne most by the lower middle class. I'd rather not have to go that route, although typically market forces are a preferred way to steer consumer habits IMHO.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,219
10,737
136
If Iran/Russia were to declare war on a larger scale, affecting places like Saudi, we would be in a world of hurt.

Think Russia will declare war on Canada and Venezuela too? :p

Saudi Arabia and the middle east as a whole are the largest world-sources of CONVENIENT oil supply, not the exclusive sources.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic and Pohemi

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
5,628
1,807
136
Do you know how to read and do any research? The goal is to reduce emissions substantially by 2030, one way to do that was supposedly to push electric vehicles. This does not take into account we still have to burn coal to charge those vehicles and we do not have enough basic resources to make that many batteries.

Liberals have had a wet dream going back to the 1970s of taking cars away from people and getting them all to use mass transit. That might work in New York, but it does not work in places like Texas. We still need cars ....and lots of them.

Had these idiots wanted to transition to simply hybrids by 2030, we might be able to achieve that and brought overall MPG to near 50.

But NOOOO! We want all electric by 2030. You can only register electric cars in California by 2035.


Generating electricity is cleaner than burning fossil fuels. And the process continues to be improved, as we research more ways to generate electricity more cleanly, and more efficiently. Generating energy from fossil fuels is largely at a standstill in terms of efficiency or cleanliness.

Research is continually being done to increase the efficiency and cost of green power such as solar panel efficiency, and better batteries. Part of that research is better recycling of any spent materials and products such as solar panel recycling and battery recycling.

On the subject of recycling, it is stupid of the USA to not recycle spent nuclear fuel rods. This is part of the problem with nuclear power reactors in the USA. Nuclear is a viable and relatively clean method of generating power if done right. Part of that is being able to recycle spent nuclear fuel rods, which is not allowed in the USA, while other countries do recycle them.

Now, yes, all energy creation does create some waste, which needs to be managed. But long term, it's a hell of a lot less polution to generate power through hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear, than burning fossil fuels forever.

And it's not just electricity. Hydrogen is a perfectly viable fuel source for some industries.

Speaking of idiot liberals holding back fuel efficiency, who was the liberal idiot who tried to roll back fuel efficiency for vehicles? I forget his name. I believe it's the same liberal idiot who tried to revoke the California Air Resources Board ability to set fuel efficiency standards. Someone help me with this one.

Speaking of California, and of public transportation, a more efficient mass transit system would reduce the huge parking lot that the highways become during rush hour. Take a look at the greater Los Angeles area. More "park and ride" stations that bring you to central business hubs such as downtown Los Angeles would reduce the number of cars, thereby reducing congestion. And it's not just to and from business hubs or places of commerce, but a better transportation system to some of the suburbs of Los Angeles so people can visit each other without needing cars. Does mass transit work everywhere and in all situations? No. But I'd wager good money to say it will work in many areas, including Texas. It just makes sense if you have a lot of cars traveling from remote locations to a centralized location, you can reduce some of the congestion by having strategic mass transit systems such as the "park and ride" type where part of the trip is on mass transit instead of a lot of vehicles trying to pack into, and out of, a choke point.
 

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
8,469
10,526
146
I dont invest, i have family members who do, and they have made money from my advice, not once lost money.
So an expert statistician who moonlights as an economist-broker. Impressive. :rolleyes:
oh, and the SPR was done for in times of war to be used, not to stabilize prices for people, even though lately that is what it has been used for.
Can't just be honest, huh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iRONic

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Short or long term, both are risky schemes by the democrats led by old man Biden to try to foist electrics on people and give them no choice otherwise. And no, I am not going to use mass transportation. I did that early in life and I never want that again. Too many damn weirdos out there.

So are they trying to force people to use a superior motive of personal transportation or are they trying to force them to use public transportation?

Either way, you're lying, but you should at least try to have your lies make sense.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,049
1,989
126
Generating electricity is cleaner than burning fossil fuels. And the process continues to be improved, as we research more ways to generate electricity more cleanly, and more efficiently. Generating energy from fossil fuels is largely at a standstill in terms of efficiency or cleanliness.

Research is continually being done to increase the efficiency and cost of green power such as solar panel efficiency, and better batteries. Part of that research is better recycling of any spent materials and products such as solar panel recycling and battery recycling.

On the subject of recycling, it is stupid of the USA to not recycle spent nuclear fuel rods. This is part of the problem with nuclear power reactors in the USA. Nuclear is a viable and relatively clean method of generating power if done right. Part of that is being able to recycle spent nuclear fuel rods, which is not allowed in the USA, while other countries do recycle them.

Now, yes, all energy creation does create some waste, which needs to be managed. But long term, it's a hell of a lot less polution to generate power through hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear, than burning fossil fuels forever.

And it's not just electricity. Hydrogen is a perfectly viable fuel source for some industries.

Speaking of idiot liberals holding back fuel efficiency, who was the liberal idiot who tried to roll back fuel efficiency for vehicles? I forget his name. I believe it's the same liberal idiot who tried to revoke the California Air Resources Board ability to set fuel efficiency standards. Someone help me with this one.

Speaking of California, and of public transportation, a more efficient mass transit system would reduce the huge parking lot that the highways become during rush hour. Take a look at the greater Los Angeles area. More "park and ride" stations that bring you to central business hubs such as downtown Los Angeles would reduce the number of cars, thereby reducing congestion. And it's not just to and from business hubs or places of commerce, but a better transportation system to some of the suburbs of Los Angeles so people can visit each other without needing cars. Does mass transit work everywhere and in all situations? No. But I'd wager good money to say it will work in many areas, including Texas. It just makes sense if you have a lot of cars traveling from remote locations to a centralized location, you can reduce some of the congestion by having strategic mass transit systems such as the "park and ride" type where part of the trip is on mass transit instead of a lot of vehicles trying to pack into, and out of, a choke point.

And thats all well and good. But let electrics and mass transit be optional not compulsory especially when we dont have the resources to replace every gasoline car out there right now.

No, the only thing that makes sense is gasoline hybrids. But full electric or only mass transit? No way.

They will have to pry the 2.0 liter 4 cylinder, multiport fuel injected engine in my 2022 Hyundai Tucson from my cold, dead hands. :eek:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: iRONic

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,378
8,127
126
But people don't only have to just look to BEVs. We'd be better off if people made better choices like picking a hybrid sedan or a PHEV compared to the best selling pick-up truck in the US - those choices would better protect consumers from huge spikes in gas prices too, because they would just be using less at the pump to begin with (bonus - we'd also be able to make limited battery supplies go further in the short term). Or the fact that most trips are less than a few miles, so shifting transportation mode-share would be another avenue. However, that all gets intertwined with a whole big thing on CAFE standards and generally bad land-use/transit policies that I don't want to derail the thread with.

Though short-term gas prices might make some look to electric vehicles, I bet from a market perspective, because buying an automobile is a relatively one-off event, sustained increases in prices (along with actual vehicle availability) are probably needed to really drive behavioral and political changes in the 1-2 year time frame.

Better urban planning, employer buy in (lockers & showers, relaxed dress code, ect) and I think e-bikes end up making a big difference too. Atlanta recently did studies on what ebikes and scooters did to traffic. They reduced car congestion by 7-10%. And that's without even really trying to move people to other forms of transportation.

When I moved my family to Portland my kids are now within walking distance of schools, my wife and I bike commute to work and I ride my bike to a lot of places instead of driving because it's just faster and more enjoyable.

A $1500 utility e-bike can do a lot of work. 40 miles for $.07. Use it to haul my kids to school.

First time in almost 25 years I'm down to one car for my family.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
And thats all well and good. But let electrics and mass transit be optional not compulsory especially when we dont have the resources to replace every gasoline car out there right now.

No, the only thing that makes sense is gasoline hybrids. But full electric or only mass transit? No way.

They will have to pry the 2.0 liter 4 cylinder, multiport fuel injected engine in my 2022 Hyundai Tucson from my cold, dead hands. :eek:

You'll have traded in that econobox for an electric long before 2035.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,049
1,989
126
You'll have traded in that econobox for an electric long before 2035.

Thanks to backwards democrat policy, this country might become the next Cuba when it comes to gasoline powered cars. Cars from the 1950s are being kept on the road as frankenstein autos in Cuba with bits and pieces scavenged from other kinds and types of cars. Combustion engine parts scavenged from junkyards as service at the dealer is no longer available in America.

Thanks Biden! :mad:
 
Dec 10, 2005
23,748
6,555
136
Thanks to backwards democrat policy, this country might become the next Cuba when it comes to gasoline powered cars. Cars from the 1950s are being kept on the road as frankenstein autos in Cuba with bits and pieces scavenged from other kinds and types of cars. Combustion engine parts scavenged from junkyards as service at the dealer is no longer available in America.

Thanks Biden! :mad:
Histrionics. Have you considered starting your own drive-for-$5 thread to take up Dave's mantle?
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
5,628
1,807
136
Thanks to backwards democrat policy, this country might become the next Cuba when it comes to gasoline powered cars. Cars from the 1950s are being kept on the road as frankenstein autos in Cuba with bits and pieces scavenged from other kinds and types of cars. Combustion engine parts scavenged from junkyards as service at the dealer is no longer available in America.

Thanks Biden! :mad:

Not sure if you're being dense on purpose or if you're truly deluded enough to believe democrats are dragging us to the past.

Biden, and democrats, are dragging republicans towards the future. This is a fact. Unless the argument uses outright falsehoods, there is no logical argument against the fact that Biden and the democratic party are dragging everyone towards the future. Policies to upgrade the nations infrastructure (opposed by Republicans), and towards reduced use of fossil fuels is the future everywhere, not just the USA.

The republicans are kicking and screaming and throwing a tantrum like a 5 year old over it, but everyone will advance towards the future, or they can join the Amish.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,486
5,007
136
Not sure if you're being dense on purpose or if you're truly deluded enough to believe democrats are dragging us to the past.

Biden, and democrats, are dragging republicans towards the future. This is a fact. Unless the argument uses outright falsehoods, there is no logical argument against the fact that Biden and the democratic party are dragging everyone towards the future. Policies to upgrade the nations infrastructure (opposed by Republicans), and towards reduced use of fossil fuels is the future everywhere, not just the USA.

The republicans are kicking and screaming and throwing a tantrum like a 5 year old over it, but everyone will advance towards the future, or they can join the Amish.


What's even worse, in a long view sort of thing, is the Repubs. insistence that we don't fund research into renewables, "green" fuels/tech, etc., is almost assuring the U.S. will become Cuba, as pcgreek says, but from another direction. We'll have no say in the worldwide standards that'll be developed for renewables and production of crap to use them, nor will we have much if any knowledge base to work from.....we'll be essentially a third-world country relying on everyone else for solar, wind, geothermal, etc. expertise.

We could become the world leaders in alternative energy development, but why bother, eh, pcgeek? Rather us being a shithole country begging for what the rest of the world's already developed and patented?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawp and iRONic

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,049
1,989
126
Not sure if you're being dense on purpose or if you're truly deluded enough to believe democrats are dragging us to the past.

Biden, and democrats, are dragging republicans towards the future. This is a fact. Unless the argument uses outright falsehoods, there is no logical argument against the fact that Biden and the democratic party are dragging everyone towards the future. Policies to upgrade the nations infrastructure (opposed by Republicans), and towards reduced use of fossil fuels is the future everywhere, not just the USA.

The republicans are kicking and screaming and throwing a tantrum like a 5 year old over it, but everyone will advance towards the future, or they can join the Amish.

Reducing the use of fossil fuels is all fine and dandy, but give people the choice not the lack thereof.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo and iRONic

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,801
13,774
146
Reducing the use of fossil fuels is all fine and dandy, but give people the choice not the lack thereof.

Let's try that line with any other dangerous substance, shall we?

Reducing the use of carcinogens is all fine and dandy, but give people the choice not the lack thereof.

Yep, doesn't work.

I remember this very same mindset in the 70s with the mandate of catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline. People said the exact same thing you're saying.

Same with tobacco smoke.

No. Just no. Just as with any other pollution, the use of fossil fuels does not just affect you.
 

Pohemi

Diamond Member
Oct 2, 2004
8,469
10,526
146
Reducing the use of fossil fuels is all fine and dandy, but give people the choice not the lack thereof.
You want them to "have a choice" for the rest of time, being a speedbump to advancement because of foot stomping and clinging to the past.

"I like my oil lanterns! I'll never use those devil-born electric lamps!"

Typical Conservatard.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,049
1,989
126
You want them to "have a choice" for the rest of time, being a speedbump to advancement because of foot stomping and clinging to the past.

"I like my oil lanterns! I'll never use those devil-born electric lamps!"

Typical Conservatard.

So you prefer environmental fascism to further the goal of stripping away peoples right to choose?