So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    And that's fine...for you.

     

     



    Exactly my point. You drive your Prius and I'll drive my truck. I don't care that you drive a Prius and you shouldn't care I drive a truck. To each his/her own I say

     

     




     

    It doesn't matter what you drive - you're likely to get far better fuel efficiency on your next car or truck than you do today.  And if you are really concerned about the price of gas, then you can probably find a hybrid of the model you like.  Silverados and Sierras both have hybrid models now.  You'll get 20-25% better fuel efficiency.  If you're getting 25% better fuel efficiency, and gas prices have increased 11% since Obama took office, you're ahead of the game even with a 4WD truck.

     

     



    Yeah but gas $1.86/gal the day Obama took office the first time.

     

     




     

    Why do conservatives keep saying this - do you think the price of gas should be $1.86 right now?  Do you think that a value on one day is more telling than an annual average?  Why do you guys keep saying this?  If you really believed this, you should not only lose power, you should not be allowed to live alone.

    This, by the way, is proof IMO that energy prices have nothing to do with supply and demand - only a frightened stock market separates $1.86 gas from $3.80 gas.

     

     



    yes, it was a low lying fruit answere and I answered most of this separately above.

     

    Energy prices are directly tied to supply and demand and the impact of instability in supply due to the large middleeast source.

    In Jan 2009, demand tanked the commute was great for those with a job due to the massive job losses.

     

     

     




     

    Gas prices dropped 60% in 4 months - how much do you think demand dropped?  I'd guess 5% at most.

     

     



    The price of oil is complex as its tied to a number of driviers:

     

    Supply and demand in general modified by; speculation on wall street driven by supply concerns  or the instability in large production areas.  There is also the NIMBY refinery and pipeline problem that drives transportation costs.  More North American oil would reduce dependence on middle east oil and make supply less uncertain.  More north american oil means a better economy, more north american jobs, less money going to the middle east.  A win for the economy and a bonus for our national security.  This was McCain's Energy Independence plan, which was also the heart of Huntsman's plan.

     




     

    Ya can't make private businesses build new refineries if they don't see the need.

    The oil companies are perfectly happy operating the inefficient and outdated refineries they have now.

    They know:

    Operating the 150 current refineries at high capacity is more effective than spending the hundreds of millions of dollars for a new plant.

    Any disruption in refining capacity will only increase the price of their product more than enough to cover the cost in lost capacity.

     

    And this is not a gov't interference or permitting issue either.

    No new refinery has come on line in the US since 1976. That is almost 40yrs and 5 different administrations.

     

     

    We are a net exporter of fossil fuel.

    That means that no matter how oil ndependent we become from the Middle East, thet has no bearing on the price we pay at the pump.

     



    It is about the regulatory, permitting process and NIMBY.  Why waste the effort when it is bound to fail.  Permittng a refinery is almost as difficult as a nuclear power plant.

    As we decrease the middle east's importance as a percent of the total mix, we reduce the risk uninterupted supply due to constant unrest and the bonus is we don't send money to countries that generally don't like us. 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    And that's fine...for you.

     

     



    Exactly my point. You drive your Prius and I'll drive my truck. I don't care that you drive a Prius and you shouldn't care I drive a truck. To each his/her own I say

     

     




     

    It doesn't matter what you drive - you're likely to get far better fuel efficiency on your next car or truck than you do today.  And if you are really concerned about the price of gas, then you can probably find a hybrid of the model you like.  Silverados and Sierras both have hybrid models now.  You'll get 20-25% better fuel efficiency.  If you're getting 25% better fuel efficiency, and gas prices have increased 11% since Obama took office, you're ahead of the game even with a 4WD truck.

     

     



    Yeah but gas $1.86/gal the day Obama took office the first time.

     

     




     

    Why do conservatives keep saying this - do you think the price of gas should be $1.86 right now?  Do you think that a value on one day is more telling than an annual average?  Why do you guys keep saying this?  If you really believed this, you should not only lose power, you should not be allowed to live alone.

    This, by the way, is proof IMO that energy prices have nothing to do with supply and demand - only a frightened stock market separates $1.86 gas from $3.80 gas.

     

     



    yes, it was a low lying fruit answere and I answered most of this separately above.

     

    Energy prices are directly tied to supply and demand and the impact of instability in supply due to the large middleeast source.

    In Jan 2009, demand tanked the commute was great for those with a job due to the massive job losses.

     

     

     




     

    Gas prices dropped 60% in 4 months - how much do you think demand dropped?  I'd guess 5% at most.

     

     



    The price of oil is complex as its tied to a number of driviers:

     

    Supply and demand in general modified by; speculation on wall street driven by supply concerns  or the instability in large production areas.  There is also the NIMBY refinery and pipeline problem that drives transportation costs.  More North American oil would reduce dependence on middle east oil and make supply less uncertain.  More north american oil means a better economy, more north american jobs, less money going to the middle east.  A win for the economy and a bonus for our national security.  This was McCain's Energy Independence plan, which was also the heart of Huntsman's plan.

     




     

    Ya can't make private businesses build new refineries if they don't see the need.

    The oil companies are perfectly happy operating the inefficient and outdated refineries they have now.

    They know:

    Operating the 150 current refineries at high capacity is more effective than spending the hundreds of millions of dollars for a new plant.

    Any disruption in refining capacity will only increase the price of their product more than enough to cover the cost in lost capacity.

     

    And this is not a gov't interference or permitting issue either.

    No new refinery has come on line in the US since 1976. That is almost 40yrs and 5 different administrations.

     

     

    We are a net exporter of fossil fuel.

    That means that no matter how oil ndependent we become from the Middle East, thet has no bearing on the price we pay at the pump.

     

     



    It is about the regulatory, permitting process and NIMBY.  Why waste the effort when it is bound to fail.  Permittng a refinery is almost as difficult as a nuclear power plant.

     

    As we decrease the middle east's importance as a percent of the total mix, we reduce the risk uninterupted supply due to constant unrest and the bonus is we don't send money to countries that generally don't like us. 

     




     

    It's got nothing to do with the permitting process.

    That process has been virtually unchanged for 40 years and no one, until recently, has even applied for a permit.

    How can it be NIMBY? You're telling me that the wingnuts can't find one wingnut district in the entire country that is willing to have a refinery built? The one constituency that is crowing the loudest about "drill-baby-drill" are not willing to build the refinery in their backyards?

     

     

     



    So, all I hear from the left is exuses, and well meaning but uniformed calls for alternative energy.

     

    When will the left get in the real world?  When will the left admit that their energy policy of higher fuel costs is part of the destruction of the middle class, the average working man?

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     



    An existing coal plant is cheaper then a new gas fired plant.  The EPA is getting ready to send out a series of new MACT regulations on stack emissions designed to kill coal and the use of No.6 or what is commonly referred to as Bunker C residual oil.  The costs of this are tremendous to the industry and will heavily impact smaller municipal power plants and large institutional facilities with central steam plants like hospitals, universities major government complexes. 

    LED's are still too expensive for light commercial and residential change out, but because of reduced O&M costs due to bulb change out LED's have become cost effective for industrial and things like highway lighting.  LED's will become cheap enough for broader use over the next 10 years.

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    An existing coal plant is cheaper then a new gas fired plant.  The EPA is getting ready to send out a series of new MACT regulations on stack emissions designed to kill coal and the use of No.6 or what is commonly referred to as Bunker C residual oil.  The costs of this are tremendous to the industry and will heavily impact smaller municipal power plants and large institutional facilities with central steam plants like hospitals, universities major government complexes. 

     

    LED's are still too expensive for light commercial and residential change out, but because of reduced O&M costs due to bulb change out LED's have become cost effective for industrial and things like highway lighting.  LED's will become cheap enough for broader use over the next 10 years.

     



    I have been buying LED bulbs when I can get them on sale.  I know that the savings is not quite there, but it makes me all sorts of warm and fuzzy to be saving the planet.

    That, and my wife leaves every light in the house on, so, I don't see how I could lose.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    Alternative energy solutions are only truly vialbe when the benefit (in dollars) outweighs the cost.

    I'm sorry, but alternative fuels for transportation are a pipe dream, and only have any success at all when subsidized by government.

    That Whole Foods has electric charging stations and Market Basket does not,  tells you all you need to know about it's viability.

    But, let me be clear:   But, you can't really make alternative fuels more viable by making existing fuels more expensive.  The only thing you do is crowd out the lower and middle classes, raising their cost of transportation to enormoughly high levels, while the swells prattle around town, stop off at Whole Foods in their Leafs and Prius's



    You really are missing out on a lot of info.

    The entire electric grid, numerous pipelines, rights-of-way, etc. that furnish our energy were ALL heavily subsidized by the govt...as were oil, gas and coal companies for development.

    Given the scale of those investments, an incentive to buy electric or hybrid cars is small, but not the same as nothing.

    What you fail to realize is - repeat - that the long-term savings (and benefits) of sustainable energies far outweigh the short-term savings (and damage) of using fossil fuels.  This is not only undeniable, it's scientific.

    And you're wrong to say the "savings isn't there" for LEDs in terms of kWh saved over the life of the bulb.  That you don't see it now doesn't mean the long-term savings doesn't exist.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    And that's fine...for you.

     

     



    Exactly my point. You drive your Prius and I'll drive my truck. I don't care that you drive a Prius and you shouldn't care I drive a truck. To each his/her own I say

     

     




     

    It doesn't matter what you drive - you're likely to get far better fuel efficiency on your next car or truck than you do today.  And if you are really concerned about the price of gas, then you can probably find a hybrid of the model you like.  Silverados and Sierras both have hybrid models now.  You'll get 20-25% better fuel efficiency.  If you're getting 25% better fuel efficiency, and gas prices have increased 11% since Obama took office, you're ahead of the game even with a 4WD truck.

     

     



    Yeah but gas $1.86/gal the day Obama took office the first time.

     

     




     

    Why do conservatives keep saying this - do you think the price of gas should be $1.86 right now?  Do you think that a value on one day is more telling than an annual average?  Why do you guys keep saying this?  If you really believed this, you should not only lose power, you should not be allowed to live alone.

    This, by the way, is proof IMO that energy prices have nothing to do with supply and demand - only a frightened stock market separates $1.86 gas from $3.80 gas.

     

     



    yes, it was a low lying fruit answere and I answered most of this separately above.

     

    Energy prices are directly tied to supply and demand and the impact of instability in supply due to the large middleeast source.

    In Jan 2009, demand tanked the commute was great for those with a job due to the massive job losses.

     

     

     




     

    Gas prices dropped 60% in 4 months - how much do you think demand dropped?  I'd guess 5% at most.

     

     



    The price of oil is complex as its tied to a number of driviers:

     

    Supply and demand in general modified by; speculation on wall street driven by supply concerns  or the instability in large production areas.  There is also the NIMBY refinery and pipeline problem that drives transportation costs.  More North American oil would reduce dependence on middle east oil and make supply less uncertain.  More north american oil means a better economy, more north american jobs, less money going to the middle east.  A win for the economy and a bonus for our national security.  This was McCain's Energy Independence plan, which was also the heart of Huntsman's plan.

     




     

    Ya can't make private businesses build new refineries if they don't see the need.

    The oil companies are perfectly happy operating the inefficient and outdated refineries they have now.

    They know:

    Operating the 150 current refineries at high capacity is more effective than spending the hundreds of millions of dollars for a new plant.

    Any disruption in refining capacity will only increase the price of their product more than enough to cover the cost in lost capacity.

     

    And this is not a gov't interference or permitting issue either.

    No new refinery has come on line in the US since 1976. That is almost 40yrs and 5 different administrations.

     

     

    We are a net exporter of fossil fuel.

    That means that no matter how oil ndependent we become from the Middle East, thet has no bearing on the price we pay at the pump.

     

     



    It is about the regulatory, permitting process and NIMBY.  Why waste the effort when it is bound to fail.  Permittng a refinery is almost as difficult as a nuclear power plant.

     

    As we decrease the middle east's importance as a percent of the total mix, we reduce the risk uninterupted supply due to constant unrest and the bonus is we don't send money to countries that generally don't like us. 

     




     

    It's got nothing to do with the permitting process.

    That process has been virtually unchanged for 40 years and no one, until recently, has even applied for a permit.

    How can it be NIMBY? You're telling me that the wingnuts can't find one wingnut district in the entire country that is willing to have a refinery built? The one constituency that is crowing the loudest about "drill-baby-drill" are not willing to build the refinery in their backyards?

     

     



    Needless to say from my work experience, it has everything to do with permitting.

    I'm involved with transportation infrastructure permitting up and down the east coast.  I'll admit in the 50's and 60's the states and Fed's had carte blanche to do what they wanted to do which is how we got the best highway system in the world.  In some areas communities paid a severe penalty as as they were bulldozed under the guise of urban renewal and a clean sweep.

    That changed in the early 70's as the brakes were put on, this also happened to Seabrook Station which is why Plant 2 was never finished.  We can see in metro Boston were the I-93 Somerville stub ramps where built for the inner loop I-695 running from the I-93 Mass Ave Interchange in a radius around Boston through the South West corridor (cleared and later used for the Orange Line), RTs 3 and 2 would have connected to it before it hit I-93.  The Northest Expressway (RT 1) was going to veer off in Revere through Rumney Marsh pulling off a lot of RT 1 traffic and connecting it to RT128/95 in Danvers.

    Today the pendulum has gone the other way and every individual voice is as loud as a communities worth, making permitting very difficult for complex prrojects.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    An existing coal plant is cheaper then a new gas fired plant.  The EPA is getting ready to send out a series of new MACT regulations on stack emissions designed to kill coal and the use of No.6 or what is commonly referred to as Bunker C residual oil.  The costs of this are tremendous to the industry and will heavily impact smaller municipal power plants and large institutional facilities with central steam plants like hospitals, universities major government complexes. 

     

    LED's are still too expensive for light commercial and residential change out, but because of reduced O&M costs due to bulb change out LED's have become cost effective for industrial and things like highway lighting.  LED's will become cheap enough for broader use over the next 10 years.

     



    Like others, you are not acknowledging the environmental costs of continuing to burn coal.  By that score, a new gas plant pays for itself by reductions in greenhouse gasses, regardles s of whether one "believes" in the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.

    Add to that the real human costs of mining for coal (upper big branch, et al.) and the gross desecration of natural resources by mountaintop removal, pollution of the air and water, and so on.  It's naive to think those costs aren't genuine or are somehow built in to the price of a ton of coal.  If the mining companies can't even be trusted to protect their workers, then how can we trust them to manage their resource efficiently?

    Lumber was also once thought of as an 'endless' resource until the costs of clear-cutting generations of old-growth forests were borne out by soil erosion, landslides, wildfires, etc.  The world's fisheries are diminishing in the same fashion.

    Point being that these short-term strategies are almost always penny-wise and pound foolish.

     

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    An existing coal plant is cheaper then a new gas fired plant.  The EPA is getting ready to send out a series of new MACT regulations on stack emissions designed to kill coal and the use of No.6 or what is commonly referred to as Bunker C residual oil.  The costs of this are tremendous to the industry and will heavily impact smaller municipal power plants and large institutional facilities with central steam plants like hospitals, universities major government complexes. 

     

    LED's are still too expensive for light commercial and residential change out, but because of reduced O&M costs due to bulb change out LED's have become cost effective for industrial and things like highway lighting.  LED's will become cheap enough for broader use over the next 10 years.

     

     



    Like others, you are not acknowledging the environmental costs of continuing to burn coal.  By that score, a new gas plant pays for itself by reductions in greenhouse gasses, regardles s of whether one "believes" in the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change.

     

    Add to that the real human costs of mining for coal (upper big branch, et al.) and the gross desecration of natural resources by mountaintop removal, pollution of the air and water, and so on.  It's naive to think those costs aren't genuine or are somehow built in to the price of a ton of coal.  If the mining companies can't even be trusted to protect their workers, then how can we trust them to manage their resource efficiently?

    Lumber was also once thought of as an 'endless' resource until the costs of clear-cutting generations of old-growth forests were borne out by soil erosion, landslides, wildfires, etc.  The world's fisheries are diminishing in the same fashion.

    Point being that these short-term strategies are almost always penny-wise and pound foolish.

     



    The costs of coal are very subjective assumptions that are manipulated by the side of the fence you are on.

    The descretion of resources, could be the claim to do nothing.  Have you viewed the desecretion caused by lithium mining?  Mine worker safety is another thing that dos need better controls.

    Lumber is now a very well managed renewable resource because it made economic sense.  Fisheries will follow; but it is complicated by international competition and varying goals.

    The best solutition will follow the cost effective model.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    And that's fine...for you.

     

     



    Exactly my point. You drive your Prius and I'll drive my truck. I don't care that you drive a Prius and you shouldn't care I drive a truck. To each his/her own I say

     

     




     

    It doesn't matter what you drive - you're likely to get far better fuel efficiency on your next car or truck than you do today.  And if you are really concerned about the price of gas, then you can probably find a hybrid of the model you like.  Silverados and Sierras both have hybrid models now.  You'll get 20-25% better fuel efficiency.  If you're getting 25% better fuel efficiency, and gas prices have increased 11% since Obama took office, you're ahead of the game even with a 4WD truck.

     

     



    Yeah but gas $1.86/gal the day Obama took office the first time.

     

     




     

    Why do conservatives keep saying this - do you think the price of gas should be $1.86 right now?  Do you think that a value on one day is more telling than an annual average?  Why do you guys keep saying this?  If you really believed this, you should not only lose power, you should not be allowed to live alone.

    This, by the way, is proof IMO that energy prices have nothing to do with supply and demand - only a frightened stock market separates $1.86 gas from $3.80 gas.

     

     



    yes, it was a low lying fruit answere and I answered most of this separately above.

     

    Energy prices are directly tied to supply and demand and the impact of instability in supply due to the large middleeast source.

    In Jan 2009, demand tanked the commute was great for those with a job due to the massive job losses.

     

     

     




     

    Gas prices dropped 60% in 4 months - how much do you think demand dropped?  I'd guess 5% at most.

     

     



    The price of oil is complex as its tied to a number of driviers:

     

    Supply and demand in general modified by; speculation on wall street driven by supply concerns  or the instability in large production areas.  There is also the NIMBY refinery and pipeline problem that drives transportation costs.  More North American oil would reduce dependence on middle east oil and make supply less uncertain.  More north american oil means a better economy, more north american jobs, less money going to the middle east.  A win for the economy and a bonus for our national security.  This was McCain's Energy Independence plan, which was also the heart of Huntsman's plan.

     




     

    Ya can't make private businesses build new refineries if they don't see the need.

    The oil companies are perfectly happy operating the inefficient and outdated refineries they have now.

    They know:

    Operating the 150 current refineries at high capacity is more effective than spending the hundreds of millions of dollars for a new plant.

    Any disruption in refining capacity will only increase the price of their product more than enough to cover the cost in lost capacity.

     

    And this is not a gov't interference or permitting issue either.

    No new refinery has come on line in the US since 1976. That is almost 40yrs and 5 different administrations.

     

     

    We are a net exporter of fossil fuel.

    That means that no matter how oil ndependent we become from the Middle East, thet has no bearing on the price we pay at the pump.

     

     



    It is about the regulatory, permitting process and NIMBY.  Why waste the effort when it is bound to fail.  Permittng a refinery is almost as difficult as a nuclear power plant.

     

    As we decrease the middle east's importance as a percent of the total mix, we reduce the risk uninterupted supply due to constant unrest and the bonus is we don't send money to countries that generally don't like us. 

     




     

    It's got nothing to do with the permitting process.

    That process has been virtually unchanged for 40 years and no one, until recently, has even applied for a permit.

    How can it be NIMBY? You're telling me that the wingnuts can't find one wingnut district in the entire country that is willing to have a refinery built? The one constituency that is crowing the loudest about "drill-baby-drill" are not willing to build the refinery in their backyards?

     

     



    Not NIMBY, regulatory. As in Feds. EPA.

    can't he EPA won't let you dump snow in the ocean, imagine how difficult it would be to get clearance for a refinery.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    Alternative energy solutions are only truly vialbe when the benefit (in dollars) outweighs the cost.

    I'm sorry, but alternative fuels for transportation are a pipe dream, and only have any success at all when subsidized by government.

    That Whole Foods has electric charging stations and Market Basket does not,  tells you all you need to know about it's viability.

    But, let me be clear:   But, you can't really make alternative fuels more viable by making existing fuels more expensive.  The only thing you do is crowd out the lower and middle classes, raising their cost of transportation to enormoughly high levels, while the swells prattle around town, stop off at Whole Foods in their Leafs and Prius's

     



    You really are missing out on a lot of info.

     

    The entire electric grid, numerous pipelines, rights-of-way, etc. that furnish our energy were ALL heavily subsidized by the govt...as were oil, gas and coal companies for development.

    Given the scale of those investments, an incentive to buy electric or hybrid cars is small, but not the same as nothing.

    What you fail to realize is - repeat - that the long-term savings (and benefits) of sustainable energies far outweigh the short-term savings (and damage) of using fossil fuels.  This is not only undeniable, it's scientific.

    And you're wrong to say the "savings isn't there" for LEDs in terms of kWh saved over the life of the bulb.  That you don't see it now doesn't mean the long-term savings doesn't exist.

     

     



    Well, no, I'm not. There is no government check going to oil companies.  There is a check going to Solyndra, for example.

     

     

    the oft cited oil subsidy is a misnomer.

     

    But, let's leave that aside.  What has happened in the past, is in the past.

    On a go-forward basis, can we agree on two things:

       Checks,i.e. investments, subsidies, whatever, should not go from the government to energy companies of all stripes,

    -and-

       Energy companies should enjoy the same tax treatment as all other companies,no more, no less.

     

    Can we agree?

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    Alternative energy solutions are only truly vialbe when the benefit (in dollars) outweighs the cost.

    I'm sorry, but alternative fuels for transportation are a pipe dream, and only have any success at all when subsidized by government.

    That Whole Foods has electric charging stations and Market Basket does not,  tells you all you need to know about it's viability.

    But, let me be clear:   But, you can't really make alternative fuels more viable by making existing fuels more expensive.  The only thing you do is crowd out the lower and middle classes, raising their cost of transportation to enormoughly high levels, while the swells prattle around town, stop off at Whole Foods in their Leafs and Prius's

     



    You really are missing out on a lot of info.

     

    The entire electric grid, numerous pipelines, rights-of-way, etc. that furnish our energy were ALL heavily subsidized by the govt...as were oil, gas and coal companies for development.

    Given the scale of those investments, an incentive to buy electric or hybrid cars is small, but not the same as nothing.

    What you fail to realize is - repeat - that the long-term savings (and benefits) of sustainable energies far outweigh the short-term savings (and damage) of using fossil fuels.  This is not only undeniable, it's scientific.

    And you're wrong to say the "savings isn't there" for LEDs in terms of kWh saved over the life of the bulb.  That you don't see it now doesn't mean the long-term savings doesn't exist.

     

     



    Well, no, I'm not. There is no government check going to oil companies.  There is a check going to Solyndra, for example.

     

     

    the oft cited oil subsidy is a misnomer.

     

    But, let's leave that aside.  What has happened in the past, is in the past.

    On a go-forward basis, can we agree on two things:

       Checks,i.e. investments, subsidies, whatever, should not go from the government to energy companies of all stripes,

    -and-

       Energy companies should enjoy the same tax treatment as all other companies,no more, no less.

     

    Can we agree?

     



    Disagree - even if you don't believe that the government should act on behalf of the environment, or to stay competitive globally in an emerging industry, you have to acknowledge reducing dependence on foreign oil is in our national defense interests.  

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    Alternative energy solutions are only truly vialbe when the benefit (in dollars) outweighs the cost.

    I'm sorry, but alternative fuels for transportation are a pipe dream, and only have any success at all when subsidized by government.

    That Whole Foods has electric charging stations and Market Basket does not,  tells you all you need to know about it's viability.

    But, let me be clear:   But, you can't really make alternative fuels more viable by making existing fuels more expensive.  The only thing you do is crowd out the lower and middle classes, raising their cost of transportation to enormoughly high levels, while the swells prattle around town, stop off at Whole Foods in their Leafs and Prius's

     



    You really are missing out on a lot of info.

     

    The entire electric grid, numerous pipelines, rights-of-way, etc. that furnish our energy were ALL heavily subsidized by the govt...as were oil, gas and coal companies for development.

    Given the scale of those investments, an incentive to buy electric or hybrid cars is small, but not the same as nothing.

    What you fail to realize is - repeat - that the long-term savings (and benefits) of sustainable energies far outweigh the short-term savings (and damage) of using fossil fuels.  This is not only undeniable, it's scientific.

    And you're wrong to say the "savings isn't there" for LEDs in terms of kWh saved over the life of the bulb.  That you don't see it now doesn't mean the long-term savings doesn't exist.

     

     



    Well, no, I'm not. There is no government check going to oil companies.  There is a check going to Solyndra, for example.

     

     

    the oft cited oil subsidy is a misnomer.

     

    But, let's leave that aside.  What has happened in the past, is in the past.

    On a go-forward basis, can we agree on two things:

       Checks,i.e. investments, subsidies, whatever, should not go from the government to energy companies of all stripes,

    -and-

       Energy companies should enjoy the same tax treatment as all other companies,no more, no less.

     

    Can we agree?

     

     



    Disagree - even if you don't believe that the government should act on behalf of the environment, or to stay competitive globally in an emerging industry, you have to acknowledge reducing dependence on foreign oil is in our national defense interests.  

     

     



    How does what I propose hobble our attempts at energy independence?  You are aware the biggest stumbling block currently is the governemnt trying to "help out" through excessive regulation and investments in the wrong places?

    How can leveling the playing field, which you libs have crowed about for the past 40 years be a bad thing?  Am I not giving you everything you want?  Eliminate everythign you complain about?  The supposed subsidies to the big oils comapines gone?

    Or, is it that these subsidies were never real in the first place?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    Alternative energy solutions are only truly vialbe when the benefit (in dollars) outweighs the cost.

    I'm sorry, but alternative fuels for transportation are a pipe dream, and only have any success at all when subsidized by government.

    That Whole Foods has electric charging stations and Market Basket does not,  tells you all you need to know about it's viability.

    But, let me be clear:   But, you can't really make alternative fuels more viable by making existing fuels more expensive.  The only thing you do is crowd out the lower and middle classes, raising their cost of transportation to enormoughly high levels, while the swells prattle around town, stop off at Whole Foods in their Leafs and Prius's

     



    You really are missing out on a lot of info.

     

    The entire electric grid, numerous pipelines, rights-of-way, etc. that furnish our energy were ALL heavily subsidized by the govt...as were oil, gas and coal companies for development.

    Given the scale of those investments, an incentive to buy electric or hybrid cars is small, but not the same as nothing.

    What you fail to realize is - repeat - that the long-term savings (and benefits) of sustainable energies far outweigh the short-term savings (and damage) of using fossil fuels.  This is not only undeniable, it's scientific.

    And you're wrong to say the "savings isn't there" for LEDs in terms of kWh saved over the life of the bulb.  That you don't see it now doesn't mean the long-term savings doesn't exist.

     

     



    Well, no, I'm not. There is no government check going to oil companies.  There is a check going to Solyndra, for example.

     

     

    the oft cited oil subsidy is a misnomer.

     

    But, let's leave that aside.  What has happened in the past, is in the past.

    On a go-forward basis, can we agree on two things:

       Checks,i.e. investments, subsidies, whatever, should not go from the government to energy companies of all stripes,

    -and-

       Energy companies should enjoy the same tax treatment as all other companies,no more, no less.

     

    Can we agree?

     

     



    Disagree - even if you don't believe that the government should act on behalf of the environment, or to stay competitive globally in an emerging industry, you have to acknowledge reducing dependence on foreign oil is in our national defense interests.  

     

     

     



    How does what I propose hobble our attempts at energy independence?  You are aware the biggest stumbling block currently is the governemnt trying to "help out" through excessive regulation and investments in the wrong places?

     

    How can leveling the playing field, which you libs have crowed about for the past 40 years be a bad thing?  Am I not giving you everything you want?  Eliminate everythign you complain about?  The supposed subsidies to the big oils comapines gone?

    Or, is it that these subsidies were never real in the first place?




    Can you give me an example where investing in the wrong place is an impediment to energy independence?

    Consider this - solar electricity provides .5% of the electricity in America.  If you live in the western US, chances are you can get all of your electricity needs from solar.  Even in a wooded area of the north-east, you can probably achieve 50% of your solar needs right now, today.  In 10 years, it will be 100%.

    So let's be conservative and say right now, at this very instant, we go out and turn that .5% into 50%.  What happens to our oil imports?  How is supply and demand of crude oil affected?  What happens to the price of coal and natural gas?  Or the mercury level in fish?  What have we done with regards to carbon emissions?  What about the need for toxic waste cleanup in places like Hanford, WA?  How about what happens when hurricane Sandys hit, and power can be restored in a day, if it goes out at all.  Once we're at 50%, how long until we're at 100%?  How long before the national power grid is obsolete, or at least a fraction of the cost and maintenance it is today?

    If you're cutting down a tree, using a chainsaw is not unfair to an axe.  Solar is the energy choice of the future - there's nothing wrong with the US government spurring growth in this sector, and there is nothing wrong with failing from time to time.  Solyndra wasn't a bad bet - it was a hedged bet.  It failed because their panel material proved more expensive than that of other companies we also invested heavily in.  That's not a problem - it's a smart investment - it could have easily worked the other way around, and Solyndra would be thriving and you'd be up in arms about the failure of some other company.  I think you should look at these investments as tantamount to government spending on R&D for the oil & nuclear industries.  In that regard, you're going to spend more as new technologies emerge than you are once they are established, so saying let's wipe out subsidies for all industries is like paying for 2 of your 3 kids to go to college, and telling your youngest that that policy is no longer in place, so as to be fair to everybody.

    I'm getting pretty good with analogies, I think.

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    When will the left get in the real world?  When will the left admit that their energy policy of higher fuel costs is part of the destruction of the middle class, the average working man?

     


    That would only make sense if the "average working man" were the predominant consumer of energy.

    They ain't.  Not by a very long shot.

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

    The costs of coal are very subjective assumptions that are manipulated by the side of the fence you are on.

    The descretion of resources, could be the claim to do nothing.  Have you viewed the desecretion caused by lithium mining?  Mine worker safety is another thing that dos need better controls.

    Lumber is now a very well managed renewable resource because it made economic sense.  Fisheries will follow; but it is complicated by international competition and varying goals.

    The best solutition will follow the cost effective model.




    It's terrible naive and malinformed to blow off the very real costs of burning fossil fuels as "subjective".

    Of what "manipulation" do you speak?  Be specific.  Is it anything close to the industry-whitewashed "studies" from the bogus heartland institute?

    Lithium mining is a drop in the bucket compared to coal.

    Yes, NOW, lumber is well-managed.  It took years of cajoling (and regulation) to finally get clear-cutting under control.

    Your argument is exactly the same as the one saying, 'go ahead and fish all you want...there's plenty of fish."  Either way, it's faulty.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    Effective alternative energy for autos and electricity are currently pipe dreams, so gimme gas and coal.

     

     


    Not true.  Alternative energy sources are proliferating exponentially throughout the globe on a mass scale.  Plug-in cars - as well as natural gas and hybrids - are being mass-produced and are extremely viable, especially for developing nations, but also for first-world economies

    Coal plants everywhere are being converted to or replaced with natural gas - and not because coal is cheap (or some delirious fantasy about Obama or anyone else "killing coal"), but because the environmental costs of burning coal far outweigh the short-term fixed costs of the electricity it produces.

    In the meantime, however, our best courses of action include implementation of energy efficiencies (like your LEDs), higher mileage standards for autos, fleet conversions, continued public and private investment in sustainable energies, and - most critically - the modernization of our rapidly deteriorating power grid.

    This is my current business vertical, and I see these decisions being made every day.

     

     



    Alternative energy solutions are only truly vialbe when the benefit (in dollars) outweighs the cost.

    I'm sorry, but alternative fuels for transportation are a pipe dream, and only have any success at all when subsidized by government.

    That Whole Foods has electric charging stations and Market Basket does not,  tells you all you need to know about it's viability.

    But, let me be clear:   But, you can't really make alternative fuels more viable by making existing fuels more expensive.  The only thing you do is crowd out the lower and middle classes, raising their cost of transportation to enormoughly high levels, while the swells prattle around town, stop off at Whole Foods in their Leafs and Prius's

     



    You really are missing out on a lot of info.

     

    The entire electric grid, numerous pipelines, rights-of-way, etc. that furnish our energy were ALL heavily subsidized by the govt...as were oil, gas and coal companies for development.

    Given the scale of those investments, an incentive to buy electric or hybrid cars is small, but not the same as nothing.

    What you fail to realize is - repeat - that the long-term savings (and benefits) of sustainable energies far outweigh the short-term savings (and damage) of using fossil fuels.  This is not only undeniable, it's scientific.

    And you're wrong to say the "savings isn't there" for LEDs in terms of kWh saved over the life of the bulb.  That you don't see it now doesn't mean the long-term savings doesn't exist.

     

     



    Well, no, I'm not. There is no government check going to oil companies.  There is a check going to Solyndra, for example.

     

     

    the oft cited oil subsidy is a misnomer.

     

    But, let's leave that aside.  What has happened in the past, is in the past.

    On a go-forward basis, can we agree on two things:

       Checks,i.e. investments, subsidies, whatever, should not go from the government to energy companies of all stripes,

    -and-

       Energy companies should enjoy the same tax treatment as all other companies,no more, no less.

     

    Can we agree?

     

     



    Disagree - even if you don't believe that the government should act on behalf of the environment, or to stay competitive globally in an emerging industry, you have to acknowledge reducing dependence on foreign oil is in our national defense interests.  

     

     

     



    How does what I propose hobble our attempts at energy independence?  You are aware the biggest stumbling block currently is the governemnt trying to "help out" through excessive regulation and investments in the wrong places?

     

    How can leveling the playing field, which you libs have crowed about for the past 40 years be a bad thing?  Am I not giving you everything you want?  Eliminate everythign you complain about?  The supposed subsidies to the big oils comapines gone?

    Or, is it that these subsidies were never real in the first place?

     




     

    Can you give me an example where investing in the wrong place is an impediment to energy independence?

    Consider this - solar electricity provides .5% of the electricity in America.  If you live in the western US, chances are you can get all of your electricity needs from solar.  Even in a wooded area of the north-east, you can probably achieve 50% of your solar needs right now, today.  In 10 years, it will be 100%.

    So let's be conservative and say right now, at this very instant, we go out and turn that .5% into 50%.  What happens to our oil imports?  How is supply and demand of crude oil affected?  What happens to the price of coal and natural gas?  Or the mercury level in fish?  What have we done with regards to carbon emissions?  What about the need for toxic waste cleanup in places like Hanford, WA?  How about what happens when hurricane Sandys hit, and power can be restored in a day, if it goes out at all.  Once we're at 50%, how long until we're at 100%?  How long before the national power grid is obsolete, or at least a fraction of the cost and maintenance it is today?

    If you're cutting down a tree, using a chainsaw is not unfair to an axe.  Solar is the energy choice of the future - there's nothing wrong with the US government spurring growth in this sector, and there is nothing wrong with failing from time to time.  Solyndra wasn't a bad bet - it was a hedged bet.  It failed because their panel material proved more expensive than that of other companies we also invested heavily in.  That's not a problem - it's a smart investment - it could have easily worked the other way around, and Solyndra would be thriving and you'd be up in arms about the failure of some other company.  I think you should look at these investments as tantamount to government spending on R&D for the oil & nuclear industries.  In that regard, you're going to spend more as new technologies emerge than you are once they are established, so saying let's wipe out subsidies for all industries is like paying for 2 of your 3 kids to go to college, and telling your youngest that that policy is no longer in place, so as to be fair to everybody.

    I'm getting pretty good with analogies, I think.

     

     



    Solyndra.

    Solyndra hampers energy independence by precisely what you claim it is, a hedged bet.  It diverts investment from market driven opportunities government mandated ones.  

    The government, and this point has been proven countless times over the years, does not have it in them to make the proper judgements when it comes to "investing in our future".  The private sector excels at this.

     

    There is more money being spent on alternative energy than fossil fule based approaches.  I wound't invest in either.  Wasted and inappropriate use of tax dollars.

    I know you will ask me for the source, so here it is.

    http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-17952.pdf

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    When will the left get in the real world?  When will the left admit that their energy policy of higher fuel costs is part of the destruction of the middle class, the average working man?

     

     


    That would only make sense if the "average working man" were the predominant consumer of energy.

    They ain't.  Not by a very long shot.

     

     



    The average working man:

    Drive to work.

    Heats their home.

    Pays for electricity.

     

    Sorry you have so little concern for the average working man that you can't see how these bills, which might just be a nuicance to you, are a problem to them.

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

    The costs of coal are very subjective assumptions that are manipulated by the side of the fence you are on.

    The descretion of resources, could be the claim to do nothing.  Have you viewed the desecretion caused by lithium mining?  Mine worker safety is another thing that dos need better controls.

    Lumber is now a very well managed renewable resource because it made economic sense.  Fisheries will follow; but it is complicated by international competition and varying goals.

    The best solutition will follow the cost effective model.

     




     

    It's terrible naive and malinformed to blow off the very real costs of burning fossil fuels as "subjective".

    Of what "manipulation" do you speak?  Be specific.  Is it anything close to the industry-whitewashed "studies" from the bogus heartland institute?

    Lithium mining is a drop in the bucket compared to coal.

    Yes, NOW, lumber is well-managed.  It took years of cajoling (and regulation) to finally get clear-cutting under control.

    Your argument is exactly the same as the one saying, 'go ahead and fish all you want...there's plenty of fish."  Either way, it's faulty.

     



    Right.  All the things that support your tree-hugin verison of the world are not a problem.  

     

    Got it.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

     

     

    The costs of coal are very subjective assumptions that are manipulated by the side of the fence you are on.

    The descretion of resources, could be the claim to do nothing.  Have you viewed the desecretion caused by lithium mining?  Mine worker safety is another thing that dos need better controls.

    Lumber is now a very well managed renewable resource because it made economic sense.  Fisheries will follow; but it is complicated by international competition and varying goals.

    The best solutition will follow the cost effective model.

     




     

    It's terrible naive and malinformed to blow off the very real costs of burning fossil fuels as "subjective".

    Of what "manipulation" do you speak?  Be specific.  Is it anything close to the industry-whitewashed "studies" from the bogus heartland institute?

    Lithium mining is a drop in the bucket compared to coal.

    Yes, NOW, lumber is well-managed.  It took years of cajoling (and regulation) to finally get clear-cutting under control.

    Your argument is exactly the same as the one saying, 'go ahead and fish all you want...there's plenty of fish."  Either way, it's faulty.

     



    Sorry, I'm still living in the dilusion solution world.  

    I have never heard of the heartland institiute.

    Also the lumber companies saw the benefits of managed forests.

    As the "crisis" grows the fishing industry will make the same beneficial decisions as lumber.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     

    When will the left get in the real world?  When will the left admit that their energy policy of higher fuel costs is part of the destruction of the middle class, the average working man?

     

     


    That would only make sense if the "average working man" were the predominant consumer of energy.

    They ain't.  Not by a very long shot.

     

     

     



    The average working man:

     

    Drive to work.

    Heats their home.

    Pays for electricity.

     

    Sorry you have so little concern for the average working man that you can't see how these bills, which might just be a nuicance to you, are a problem to them.

     



    No, you don't get it.

    The "average working man" and his residential applications are not even close to the most significant consumer of energy.

    This means that the largest savings need to first come from the biggest users.  Both energy companies and govt regulators know this, and they incentivize the savings.

    As low volume-users, the 'working man' is simply caught in the middle.  Which is why I say, yet again, that the #1 thing people can do to lower their energy costs is USE LESS.

    My clients are utilities.  This is what I do.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: So, is the gas price high enough to crush the working man?

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    Right.  All the things that support your tree-hugin verison of the world are not a problem.  

    Got it.



    I'm sorry you're having trouble translating english into english...

    ...but that's not at all what I said.

     

     

Share