Energy Policy

[HeloDude]

11 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Cool cartoon and all, but US domestic oil production during Biden's time in office has been very high! The highest, in fact! More is great and let's do it specifically to screw over Putin but...it's hard to complain when he's #1. Domestic Oil King Biden 2024, basically.

Just curious as to why you think US oil production in 2019 was 12.29 millions of barrels per day but was only 11.18 in 2021 and is only forecasted to be 11.85 in 2022?  I mean, if Biden is “Domestic Oil King 2024”, wouldn’t he so far have the highest year ever?

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Just curious as to why you think US oil production in 2019 was 12.29 millions of barrels per day but was only 11.18 in 2021 and is only forecasted to be 11.85 in 2022?  I mean, if Biden is “Domestic Oil King 2024”, wouldn’t he so far have the highest year ever?

There was thing little hiccup that started in February/March 2020…not sure if you remember haha.

To be fair, Trump’s total numbers would have been higher were it not for the pandemic cutting out a lot of production for ~18 of his 48 months in office, and Biden’s would be higher as well if we had not suffered the pandemic slow down. We’re near it now, but the projection is that we’ll no-joke be back at all-time high annual production in 2023 and continuing to press higher in 2024.

My big point is that domestic oil production is at or near all-time highs with growth on the horizon, especially given the high prices we’re seeing now. A lot of people get *vibes* that Biden has somehow hurt domestic production, but the data does not back that feeling up.  

Edited March 12, 2022 by nsplayr

[Sim]

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/so-the-biden-administration-is-pro-fossil-fuels-now/

 

 

 

[jice]

6 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Just curious as to why you think US oil production in 2019 was 12.29 millions of barrels per day but was only 11.18 in 2021 and is only forecasted to be 11.85 in 2022?  I mean, if Biden is “Domestic Oil King 2024”, wouldn’t he so far have the highest year ever?

A wag that I’ve heard folks in the extraction business use is $80 a barrel to produce from shale plays like the Permian (much of TX) and Bakken (Dakotas). When the price of oil is below that, producers in these areas can’t turn a profit; you’d expect production to decrease, even with an increase in price, until the price of crude stabilizes above that key number (+- an extraction operation’s comparative  advantage and/or risk tolerance.) 

I’d expect the 2022 projection to increase, but only as fast as we can reopen the more advanced plays. [$$]

It’s not intuitive when you’re paying $130 to fill the truck, but domestic production lags the price of oil and always will in a capitalist society. (Which everybody knows, but is easy to forget when there’s sport bitching to do.)

Would be a great time to have an RV camp in Midland… as long as you don’t mind a gunfight here or there. 
 

 

[M2]

Too many people (including Biden) profit from high oil prices.  None of those who work the oil fields here in Texas liked it when the price of a barrel dropped as far as it did, how are they expected to pay for their $85K pick-ups when gas is cheap?!?!

Nsplayr, continue to support your boy Biden all you like; but the current economic crisis is all his fault.  Your 'blame Trump' chant is  old and always has been.  I am sure you'll attack the sources as like Biden you've become a master of the "deny, deny, deny, counter accuse, demand an apology' response to any criticism; but the truth is his presidency is lining up to be an epic failure of biblical proportions, and no amount of propagandist BS from you is going to convince anyone otherwise!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-says-inflation-putin-fault-not-democratic-spending

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/03/10/inflation-february/

[HeloDude]

6 hours ago, nsplayr said:

To be fair, Trump’s total numbers would have been higher…

So your post was intentionally misleading.  It’s almost as if the left is suddenly trying to make the argument that Biden and his policies are better for oil production than Trump was during his term.  I guess that’s what happens when you have high inflation/gas soon to be over $5 a gallon and you’re trying to tell the American people that your policies are actually good for energy prices even though Biden and the left are literally on record saying how they want to drastically reduce fossil fuel production.

I know you want to say this has nothing to do with politics, but the truth is that this has everything to do with politics.  The high inflation wasn’t an accident…and originally the left was saying it was a good thing and not to worry because it was “transitory”.  
 

But hey, just go buy an electric car if you don’t like the high gas prices…

https://nypost.com/2021/11/29/buttigieg-slammed-for-urging-electric-car-buying-to-counter-gas-prices/

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, jice said:

A wag that I’ve heard folks in the extraction business use is $80 a barrel to produce from shale plays like the Permian (much of TX) and Bakken (Dakotas). When the price of oil is below that, producers in these areas can’t turn a profit; you’d expect production to decrease, even with an increase in price, until the price of crude stabilizes above that key number (+- an extraction operation’s comparative  advantage and/or risk tolerance.)

Oh supply vs demand always reigns supreme.  But…it’s almost as if restrictive regulations also have a strong part in the game when it comes to production/prices.  
 

Hell, one of the leading contenders for the Dem’s 2020 nominee said he was against all new fracking and wanted to rapidly end existing fracking.  Oh and he’s now the Transportation Secretary.  

Edited March 12, 2022 by HeloDude

[nsplayr]

3 hours ago, M2 said:

Nsplayr, continue to support your boy Biden all you like; but the current economic crisis is all his fault.  Your 'blame Trump' chant is  old and always has been.  I am sure you'll attack the sources as like Biden you've become a master of the "deny, deny, deny, counter accuse, demand an apology' response to any criticism; but the truth is his presidency is lining up to be an epic failure of biblical proportions, and no amount of propagandist BS from you is going to convince anyone otherwise!

So is this about energy policy in some way or just a general “let’s sh*T on Biden / our least favorite politician du jour?” Nowhere have I “blamed Trump” for current economic conditions or for oil prices. FWIW our economic performance from 2020-Jan 2021 when he left office while bad objectively was admirable comparatively and our recovery from the pandemic recession has been much better than most of the other advanced economies. Trump also greatly increased domestic oil production, which is a good thing given where we’re at now re: boycotting Russian oil.

I only even brought up Bush/Clinton/Obama/Trump/Biden here to demonstrate that Biden isn’t some uniquely anti-oil leader…we’re producing a lot of domestic oil right now during his administration! The numbers don’t lie…the lowest levels of domestic production came under GWB, the Texas cowboy, go figure…it’s not intuitive but it’s also true.

BL: If there’s something to be said about energy policy, let’s talk here. If y’all just wanna make another thread “Biden Sucks and Let Me Count The Ways” or “Trump 2024” then feel free to rename this and I’ll see my self elsewhere.

I am for much more energy. Like let’s freaking Dyson sphere the sun if we can. I’m very pro-nuclear and renewables and would spend more money and cut regulation for building both significantly if I could wave a magic wand. Let’s figure out fission. In the short-term, let’s allow for continued high levels of domestic oil production to end once and for all our need to get thrashed by global events quite as hard, although with oil being a global commodity that’s tough even for a big producer like us. I still fully support moving away from fossil fuels to other sources of energy with less negative externalities as quickly as is feasible understanding that there are roles where fossil fuels are still massive more favorable, and ok in those roles let’s use what we’ve got.

Electric vehicles *are* a viable alternative for like 96.9% of the driving Americans do and they absolutely would shield you from variable gas prices right now. I happened to recently have purchased an EV and it’s fantastic. Literally 6x more efficient cost per mile than my gas car, and that was calculated at pre-Ukraine gas prices. Electricity rates at least where I live are only reassessed annually at most and you can easily power an EV (and probably most of your other electricity usage) with rooftop storage if you own your home, which I plan on doing soon.

I think energy policy and EVs and nuclear reactors are cool and would love to discuss that. I also follow politics very closely and tend to want to point out stuff that’s not accurate, perhaps to a fault. But I disagree that every discussion *always* has to be all about politics. Let’s make this one at least a little bit better than the several other dumpster fires raging (I’m looking at you COVID thread…) That’s my two cents anyways, maybe I’m just pissing into the wind here, which I’ve learned over many years on BO.net is a truly renewable resource 😅

Edited March 12, 2022 by nsplayr

[hockeydork]

19 hours ago, GrndPndr said:

Guess I picked a bad day to own a vehicle which only consumes premium fuel.  $5.15/gal this morning.  

Did Joe do that, or was it Putin?

I've been E85ing mine, working great for now. Mileage is down slightly but we'll worth it cost wise. 

[hockeydork]

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Just curious as to why you think US oil production in 2019 was 12.29 millions of barrels per day but was only 11.18 in 2021 and is only forecasted to be 11.85 in 2022?  I mean, if Biden is “Domestic Oil King 2024”, wouldn’t he so far have the highest year ever?

Because electric cars are coming, there's no stopping them. Oil industry knows this but is going to squeeze out as much profit as they can. It's what I'd do if I was CEO of Chevron. 

I drive a G8 with an LS3, so I love gas. The electric car is coming and will significantly dent oil demand. 

[HeloDude]

48 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Because electric cars are coming, there's no stopping them. Oil industry knows this but is going to squeeze out as much profit as they can. It's what I'd do if I was CEO of Chevron. 

I drive a G8 with an LS3, so I love gas. The electric car is coming and will significantly dent oil demand. 

So then why the need to provide monetary incentives for the electric car industry and only have further restrictive regulations on oil and traditional vehicles?  
 

I don’t recall the government making VCRs more restrictive to make the way for DVD players?

[arg]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

So is this about energy policy in some way or just a general “let’s sh*T on Biden / our least favorite politician du jour?” Nowhere have I “blamed Trump” for current economic conditions or for oil prices. FWIW our economic performance from 2020-Jan 2021 when he left office while bad objectively was admirable comparatively and our recovery from the pandemic recession has been much better than most of the other advanced economies. Trump also greatly increased domestic oil production, which is a good thing given where we’re at now re: boycotting Russian oil.

I only even brought up Bush/Clinton/Obama/Trump/Biden here to demonstrate that Biden isn’t some uniquely anti-oil leader…we’re producing a lot of domestic oil right now during his administration! The numbers don’t lie…the lowest levels of domestic production came under GWB, the Texas cowboy, go figure…it’s not intuitive but it’s also true.

BL: If there’s something to be said about energy policy, let’s talk here. If y’all just wanna make another thread “Biden Sucks and Let Me Count The Ways” or “Trump 2024” then feel free to rename this and I’ll see my self elsewhere.

I am for much more energy. Like let’s freaking Dyson sphere the sun if we can. I’m very pro-nuclear and renewables and would spend more money and cut regulation for building both significantly if I could wave a magic wand. Let’s figure out fission. In the short-term, let’s allow for continued high levels of domestic oil production to end once and for all our need to get thrashed by global events quite as hard, although with oil being a global commodity that’s tough even for a big producer like us. I still fully support moving away from fossil fuels to other sources of energy with less negative externalities as quickly as is feasible understanding that there are roles where fossil fuels are still massive more favorable, and ok in those roles let’s use what we’ve got.

Electric vehicles *are* a viable alternative for like 96.9% of the driving Americans do and they absolutely would shield you from variable gas prices right now. I happened to recently have purchased an EV and it’s fantastic. Literally 6x more efficient cost per mile than my gas car, and that was calculated at pre-Ukraine gas prices. Electricity rates at least where I live are only reassessed annually at most and you can easily power an EV (and probably most of your other electricity usage) with rooftop storage if you own your home, which I plan on doing soon.

I think energy policy and EVs and nuclear reactors are cool and would love to discuss that. I also follow politics very closely and tend to want to point out stuff that’s not accurate, perhaps to a fault. But I disagree that every discussion *always* has to be all about politics. Let’s make this one at least a little bit better than the several other dumpster fires raging (I’m looking at you COVID thread…) That’s my two cents anyways, maybe I’m just pissing into the wind here, which I’ve learned over many years on BO.net is a truly renewable resource 😅

I'm curious. Did you have to do anything to your house to support charging an EV? If so how much was it? I've heard it can be pretty expensive.

Edited March 12, 2022 by arg
sp

[hockeydork]

51 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So then why the need to provide monetary incentives for the electric car industry and only have further restrictive regulations on oil and traditional vehicles?  
 

I don’t recall the government making VCRs more restrictive to make the way for DVD players?

Because humans, for the most part, are terrible at caring about long term goals. Which makes sense: we are finite creatures, why care about a problem for somebody who won’t be born for another 150 years? It’s unnatural to care. Which is the exact same reason the nuclear plants you want to build (and I agree with you), aren’t getting built, even tho they are better than a natural gas plant

Switching  a significant portion of the fleet to electric cars requires large infrastructure investment and some lifestyle adjustment (numerous charging stations at places of employment, fuel management planning/skills, similar to what a pilot has to deal with since we cannot pull over when the plane runs out). The incentive to adopt/infrastructure upgrades is more than the average consumer has the power do do (rapidly at least), unlike an iPod. An iPod is a luxury item, transportation is a necessity.

I also acknowledge that electric cars ARE NOT a perfect drop in replacement for liquid fueled vehicles, at least yet (unlike an iPod was for CD player). They’re different. A negative is that their “turn times” are not 2 minutes at a pump (they need time to charge, even if its only an hour for a fast charge).  A positive is there are a lot less things to break (no exhaust to rot, no complex transmission, no oxygen sensors, oil pan gaskets, valve cover gaskets, rear mains seals, the list goes on), and fuel costs are much lower over the life of the vehicle.

If I was a betting man: You will see most families owning a mix, probably at least one liquid fuel car and one electric car. This may vary with location. If you live in a city, you may be all electric, in the country, you may be all liquid fuel.

Investment in electric infrastructure upgrades will be costly at first, but there are dividends in the long term.

As to the long term future of liquid fuel (in like 100 years), I know cellulosic ethanol has flopped in the past due to production costs, but if electricity can be generated cheap enough to lower the processing costs, I could see this being the liquid fuel of the future. Especially since I’ve read Exxon has some nifty proprietary tech to make ethanol into liquid butanol (basically a perfect gasoline drop in replacement), which eliminates the water affinity problem of ethanol.

[HeloDude]

20 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Because humans, for the most part, are terrible at caring about long term goals.

So you don’t trust people to make their own decisions and thus believe that decisions need to be made for them…as long as you like those decisions.  Spoken like a true progressive and/or elitist.

If EVs were so great they would sell themselves without taxpayer incentives.  The left has sold out to the environmentalists and the Dems are now trying to spin their policies as actually being for fossil fuels even though you can’t swing a dead cat without easily finding evidence to the contrary.

[hockeydork]

2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

So you don’t trust people to make their own decisions and thus believe that decisions need to be made for them…as long as you like those decisions.  Spoken like a true progressive and/or elitist.

If EVs were so great they would sell themselves without taxpayer incentives.  The left has sold out to the environmentalists and the Dems are now trying to spin their policies as actually being for fossil fuels even though you can’t swing a dead cat without easily finding evidence to the contrary.

If airplanes were so great the airlines would build airport's themselves without government funding. 

Disengaging, you suck. Your on a political tirade, not actually interested in energy policy. 

[HeloDude]

9 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

If airplanes were so great the airlines would build airport's themselves without government funding. 

Disengaging, you suck. Your on a political tirade, not actually interested in energy policy. 

Not interested when your response is “well, I know better than other people and that’s why”.

And if EVs use different roads than what gasoline cars use, please let me know!  

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, arg said:

I'm curious. Did you have to do anything to your house to support charging an EV? If so how much was it? I've heard it can be pretty expensive.

I did have a level 2 charger installed, yea. I went with the chargepoint flex home and it cost $700 on Amazon. Hired an electrician to hard-wire that in my garage on a dedicated 80amp breaker. He also ran a conduit to the other side of my garage to match where the EV is parked. That charger only pulls 48amps so it was a little overkill for future proofing. That all cost $1,000. I get about ~30 miles of range added per hour with the level 2 charger, so charging from 5%-80% would take 6 hours. I normally only have to charge for about 2-3 hours per day though and if I had variable electricity rates I’d take advantage and do that overnight, but my utility doesn’t do that so I just plug in right when I park and unplug when I leave again. All controllable in both the charger’s app or the car’s app/touchscreen.

I just re-ran the numbers with current gas prices and my EV (VW ID.4 AWD) is now 8.4x more cost efficient per mile than my gas car (2010 VW GTI, 27mpg but requires premium). I paid $62 to put 2,774 of range on the EV in February via home charging and that same $62 now buys me one tank of gas and 330 miles of range on the gas car ☹️

With these numbers it would take me ~26 months of driving the EV to repay the cost of installing the charger based on lower per mileage costs alone, less if i drove even more (I already drove it a lot for 1 month!) or if gas prices continue to climb.

Obviously there are other benefits in the equation on the side of the EV (brand new, faster, instant torque, steering assist, cool spaceship noises, etc.) but that’s the bottom line on costs and home charging based on my local electricity rates (which are very cheap in middle Tennessee FWIW).

I could have done the level 2 charging infrastructure slightly cheaper but I wanted what I considered the best charger and I am not an electrician able to install myself.

You can factor in level 1 charging (regular 3-prong plug ie no new infrastructure needed) and DC fast charging to the equation. Level 1 only was giving me ~3 miles per hour of range added which was not enough for all the driving I am doing and the frequency of turn time in the garage. I’ve done DC fast charging once and it was great, and free on the Electrify America network for the next 3 years for me, but there are not DC fast chargers located near where I idle (eg work, grocery stores, etc.) and I haven’t done a road trip yet to really test it out. Tesla is way ahead here with their supercharger network but there’s a lot of investment happening to build that out for non-Tesla EVs and to hopefully have Tesla let other EVs charge in their network too.

Get an EV if you can find one, it’s been really great so far. I already have reservations on 2 more, another VW ID.4 AWD and an F-150 Lightning…still deciding on if I wanna hold out for the Ford or just double down on another ID.4  AWD that’s honestly been a 9.5/10 for me and what I need to do with it.

Edited March 12, 2022 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I did have a level 2 charger installed, yea. I went with the chargepoint flex home and it cost $700 on Amazon. Hired an electrician to hard-wire that in my garage on a dedicated 80amp breaker. He also ran a conduit to the other side of my garage to match where the EV is parked. That charger only pulls 48amps so it was a little overkill for future proofing. That all cost $1,000. I get about ~30 miles of range added per hour with our level 2 charger, so charging from 5%-80% would take 6 hours. I normally only have to charge for about 2-3 hours per day and if we I variable electricity rates I’d take advantage and do that overnight but my utility doesn’t do that so I just plug in right when I park and unplug when I leave again.

I just re-ran the numbers with current gas prices and my EV (VW ID.4 AWD) is now 8.4x more cost efficient per mile than my gas car (27mpg but requires premium). I paid $62 to put 2,774 of range on the EV in February via home charging and that same $62 now buys me one tank of gas and 330 miles of range on the gas car ☹️

With these numbers it would take me ~26 months of driving the EV to repay the cost of installing the charger based on lower per mileage costs alone, less if i drove even more (I already drove it a lot for 1 month!) or if gas prices continue to climb.

Obviously there are other benefits in the equation on the side of the EV (brand new, faster, instant torque, steering assist, cool spaceship noises, etc.) but that’s the bottom line on costs and home charging based on my local electricity rates (which are very cheap in middle Tennessee FWIW).

I could have done the level 2 charging infrastructure slightly cheaper but I wanted what I considered the best charger and I am not an electrician able to install myself.

You can factor in level 1 charging (regular 3-prong plug ie no new infrastructure needed) and DC fast charging to the equation. Level 1 only was giving me ~3 miles per hour of range added which was not enough for all the driving I am doing and the frequency of turn time in the garage. I’ve done DC fast charging once and it was great, and free on the Electrify America network for the next 3 years for me, but there are not DC fast chargers located near where I idle (eg work, grocery stores, etc.) and I haven’t done a road trip yet to really test it out. Tesla is way ahead here with their supercharger network but there’s a lot of investment happening to build that out for non-Tesla EVs and to hopefully have Tesla let other EVs charge in their network too.

Get an EV if you can find one, it’s been really great so far. I already have reservations on 2 more, another VW ID.4 AWD and an F-150 Lightning…still deciding on if I wanna hold out for the Ford or just double down on another ID.4  AWD that’s honestly been a 9.5/10 for me and what I need to do with it.

Solid post—thanks for the info.

[hockeydork]

20 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Not interested when your response is “well, I know better than other people and that’s why”.

And if EVs use different roads than what gasoline cars use, please let me know!  

Not once did I bring politics into this thread. Not once did I advocate for banning gasoline vehicles, which is different than encouraging electric vehicles and supporting infrastucture development.

You're so focused on "beating the left", you can't approach a discussion without that bleeding into your thoughts. Which basically makes you problem solving/combat ineffective.

 

[Blue]

On 3/7/2022 at 3:11 PM, nsplayr said:

I’ll lead with this: despite rhetoric to the contrary, US domestic oil production is projected to set a new record high in 2023, reflecting a full recovery from the losses due to the pandemic.

“U.S. crude oil production averaged 11.2 million b/d in 2021. We expect production to average 11.8 million b/d in 2022 and to rise to 12.4 million b/d in 2023, which would be the highest annual average U.S. crude oil production on record. The current record is 12.3 million b/d, set in 2019.”

 

On 3/11/2022 at 2:38 PM, arg said:

Posted the link because because it's interactive. Look what happened between January and August 2020. Also November 2016 to January 2020.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart

All of the back-and-forth aside, doesn't the above point to the current spike in oil prices being transitory?

Looking at the oil futures, it looks like they're predicting a steady decline, dropping back below $100/barrel this summer.

Edited March 12, 2022 by Blue

[daynightindicator]

I did have a level 2 charger installed, yea. I went with the chargepoint flex home and it cost $700 on Amazon. Hired an electrician to hard-wire that in my garage on a dedicated 80amp breaker. He also ran a conduit to the other side of my garage to match where the EV is parked. That charger only pulls 48amps so it was a little overkill for future proofing. That all cost $1,000. I get about ~30 miles of range added per hour with the level 2 charger, so charging from 5%-80% would take 6 hours. I normally only have to charge for about 2-3 hours per day though and if I had variable electricity rates I’d take advantage and do that overnight, but my utility doesn’t do that so I just plug in right when I park and unplug when I leave again. All controllable in both the charger’s app or the car’s app/touchscreen.
I just re-ran the numbers with current gas prices and my EV (VW ID.4 AWD) is now 8.4x more cost efficient per mile than my gas car (2010 VW GTI, 27mpg but requires premium). I paid $62 to put 2,774 of range on the EV in February via home charging and that same $62 now buys me one tank of gas and 330 miles of range on the gas car ☹️

With these numbers it would take me ~26 months of driving the EV to repay the cost of installing the charger based on lower per mileage costs alone, less if i drove even more (I already drove it a lot for 1 month!) or if gas prices continue to climb.
Obviously there are other benefits in the equation on the side of the EV (brand new, faster, instant torque, steering assist, cool spaceship noises, etc.) but that’s the bottom line on costs and home charging based on my local electricity rates (which are very cheap in middle Tennessee FWIW).
I could have done the level 2 charging infrastructure slightly cheaper but I wanted what I considered the best charger and I am not an electrician able to install myself.
You can factor in level 1 charging (regular 3-prong plug ie no new infrastructure needed) and DC fast charging to the equation. Level 1 only was giving me ~3 miles per hour of range added which was not enough for all the driving I am doing and the frequency of turn time in the garage. I’ve done DC fast charging once and it was great, and free on the Electrify America network for the next 3 years for me, but there are not DC fast chargers located near where I idle (eg work, grocery stores, etc.) and I haven’t done a road trip yet to really test it out. Tesla is way ahead here with their supercharger network but there’s a lot of investment happening to build that out for non-Tesla EVs and to hopefully have Tesla let other EVs charge in their network too.
Get an EV if you can find one, it’s been really great so far. I already have reservations on 2 more, another VW ID.4 AWD and an F-150 Lightning…still deciding on if I wanna hold out for the Ford or just double down on another ID.4  AWD that’s honestly been a 9.5/10 for me and what I need to do with it.

I’ve owned EVs since 2014 (2 x Teslas) and had 3 homes wired for charging. I paid an electrician to drop a 220 in the garage in each home (same outlet as an electric dryer). Cost $100-150 each time.

It’s a relatively simple equation to figure out your cost comparison vs. gas.

A = Miles driven per month
B = Avg miles per full charge
C = Battery size in KW
D = Electric bill cost per KWh

((A/B) x C) x D

Example, 900 miles/month, my car averages 300 miles per full charge on a 100KW batt

((900/300) x 100) x .109 = $32.70/month

Apologies for derail, but it might help someone if they’re debating going electric. I have no ragrets.

[HeloDude]

19 minutes ago, hockeydork said:

Not once did I bring politics into this thread. Not once did I advocate for banning gasoline vehicles, which is different than encouraging electric vehicles and supporting infrastucture development.

You're so focused on "beating the left", you can't approach a discussion without that bleeding into your thoughts. Which basically makes you problem solving/combat ineffective.

 

Dude, you can’t discuss EV’s and oil/gas vehicles and how one is better/worse and how one is going away/not going away without discussing the politics because it’s far from a free market.  And worse, when I asked you why it was then needed for the government to interfere (incentives for EV’s and stricter regulation for oil and gas vehicles), your response is that humans aren’t good at making their own decisions.  
 

I have no doubt that technology will evolve/improve our lives since that has been going on since the beginning of humanity.  However this notion that “humans can’t make their own decisions” means that the technology currently is not ready to stand on its own merit.  The government is once again trying to pick winners and losers, and so your argument of how great something currently is doesn’t hold water because if it was then people would naturally be attracted to it without the interference.  

That all being said, I’m excited to see what the future brings wrt electric vehicles and when oil/gas engines have lost their place, then so be it.  But let’s not pretend that this is happening on its own.  

[hockeydork]

5 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Dude, you can’t discuss EV’s and oil/gas vehicles and how one is better/worse and how one is going away/not going away without discussing the politics because it’s far from a free market.  And worse, when I asked you why it was then needed for the government to interfere (incentives for EV’s and stricter regulation for oil and gas vehicles), your response is that humans aren’t good at making their own decisions.  
 

I have no doubt that technology will evolve/improve our lives since that has been going on since the beginning of humanity.  However this notion that “humans can’t make their own decisions” means that the technology currently is not ready to stand on its own merit.  The government is once again trying to pick winners and losers, and so your argument of how great something currently is doesn’t hold water because if it was then people would naturally be attracted to it without the interference.  

That all being said, I’m excited to see what the future brings wrt electric vehicles and when oil/gas engines have lost their place, then so be it.  But let’s not pretend that this is happening on its own.  

Well I might be in the minority than, because for me its an engineering problem, so that's what governs my approach. EVs and gas cars are just different tools to solve different problems.

I struggle with the notion of making policies based off of picking winners here and losers over there, pissing off this group of political people over here, etc. Even if that is how it goes down 90 recent of the time, for better or worse.

Also I don't think gas engines will be abolished, just play a different role. And if the government tries to take my gas car away, I'll absolutely resist. US oil manufacturers are unlikely to be going anywhere, but they should probably plan for a smaller market share, and should probably start buying up renewable companies like their foreign counterparts have been. 

With regards to the incentives, I acknowledged EVs were not perfect gas replacements, are new tech, and will intially require some enticement. Also expect those incentives to vanish as mass production of EVs start to play a role and initial costs to acquire an EV become comparable to an ICE car. Vehicles aren't TVs, they are a necessity for most people to get to work and require infrastructure, and are the second largest investment after homes. Could the free market develop EVs on its own? Sure. Would it take a lot longer? Yes. So if you are 100 percent on the free market train, than yea I guess incentives by the government are government meddling somewhere it shouldn't be in your eyes. But so was bailing out the US auto makers. I am fine with your position, so long as your fine with having to drive a KIA with Ford GM and Chrysler all defunct. 

Per the video previously posted, we should be building more nuke plants because they are more economical in the long run than natural gas, but we don't. So why is that than? You agree we are making the right decision by not harnessing emission free nuke plants? Nuke technology can stand on its own merit, yet where is it?

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, hockeydork said:

Well I might be in the minority than, because for me its an engineering problem, so that's what governs my approach. EVs and gas cars are just different tools to solve different problems.

I struggle with the notion of making policies based off of picking winners here and losers over there, pissing off this group of political people over here, etc. Even if that is how it goes down 90 recent of the time, for better or worse.

Also I don't think gas engines will be abolished, just play a different role. And if the government tries to take my gas car away, I'll absolutely resist. US oil manufacturers are unlikely to be going anywhere, but they should probably plan for a smaller market share, and should probably start buying up renewable companies like their foreign counterparts have been. 

With regards to the incentives, I acknowledged EVs were not perfect gas replacements, are new tech, and will intially require some enticement. Also expect those incentives to vanish as mass production of EVs start to play a role and initial costs to acquire an EV become comparable to an ICE car. Vehicles aren't TVs, they are a necessity for most people to get to work and require infrastructure, and are the second largest investment after homes. Could the free market develop EVs on its own? Sure. Would it take a lot longer? Yes. So if you are 100 percent on the free market train, than yea I guess incentives by the government are government meddling somewhere it shouldn't be in your eyes. But so was bailing out the US auto makers. I am fine with your position, so long as your fine with having to drive a KIA with Ford GM and Chrysler all defunct. 

Per the video previously posted, we should be building more nuke plants because they are more economical in the long run than natural gas, but we don't. So why is that than? You agree we are making the right decision by not harnessing emission free nuke plants? Nuke technology can stand on its own merit, yet where is it?

The government will rarely ever be successful in “taking something away from you” that you already own.  That being said, they’ll raise taxes on gas to dissuade you from owning it.  Or your state will raise the cost of renewing your tags but will give a large discount on EV tags.  Also, the government will require new gas cars to be able to get current gas mileage + a new X miles to the gallon in 5 years.  On and on.  They’ll just make it more difficult for you to keep your vehicle and will incentivize you to buy a new EV with taxpayer money (“cash for clunkers” anyone??), or most likely, future taxpayer’s money.  And just like I was against cash for clunkers, I was against the auto bailout as well.  But there’s no way the government was going to let those union jobs fail.

None of this will be done to directly help people, rather it will be done in the name of “fighting climate change”…and yet the elites will still have whatever they want to drive, their private jets, etc because they can afford it.  

As for the infrastructure piece, we can definitely argue that one—I’m all for new nuclear power plants, but the left in recent times hasn’t been as for it, so that’s not helping.  Also, the GOP says they’re for it, but doesn’t really do much to get it done.   But are vehicles infrastructure?  Do EV’s cause any significant benefit to reducing wear/tear on roads?  

[Blue]

The entire discussion around EVs as a panacea for high oil prices seems a bit misguided.  About 40% of the typical barrel of oil is turned into gasoline.  The rest goes to jet fuel, diesel, resins, etc.  If you waved a magic wand and turned every personal vehicle in the US into an EV overnight, you'd still have the same problems of securing a steady oil supply.