Gas Prices

[Tidewater_Wave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk

Hmm gee what about Obama is different from in 2008? I can't think of it for the life of me. Maybe Obama has a different job than he did in 2008 and now he is all of a sudden against higher gas prices. Surely, re-election doesn't have anything to do with wanting prices to come down does it? Romney better have this in an ad. Maybe we should just inflate our tires properly. What a mechanic!

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

I inflate my tires properly to get better mileage and because it is safer.  Tires do not have the PSI appropriate can be a hazard.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I inflate my tires properly to get better mileage and because it is safer.  Tires do not have the PSI appropriate can be a hazard.

I know it's important but not everything in conserving engery. One thing I'd like to see actually is hydrogen powered cars.

[Adam Griffin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk

Hmm gee what about Obama is different from in 2008? I can't think of it for the life of me. Maybe Obama has a different job than he did in 2008 and now he is all of a sudden against higher gas prices. Surely, re-election doesn't have anything to do with wanting prices to come down does it? Romney better have this in an ad. Maybe we should just inflate our tires properly. What a mechanic!

Meh, he said that he wished that oil prices (referring to the spike that was occurring at that point in 2008) would have came more gradually rather than all at once. After that, he mentioned how the United States (particularly its energy and automobile sectors) have to become more adept at adjusting to the reality of the fluctuating cost of energy.

Solar's technically cheaper than nuclear at this point (when factoring in how long it takes to build a nuclear plant and the regulatory process that delays groundbreaking by at least five years). We could make the switch to electric cars or hydrogen fuel cells and all of this would be a moot point.

[Cory]

With Peak Oil and whatnot gas prices have nowhere to go but up really. How long it takes for us to shift to alternatives is the real question.

[old timey villain]

High gas prices are bad for pretty much every average American, but I think there are a lot of Republicans out there who get positively giddy each time prices rise. Right now it's basically the only big issue that's working against Obama, and it has the potential to hurt him, so they want to make sure everyone knows that prices are rising and it's ALL OBAMA'S FAULT!!

Give me a damn break. There's really not all that much a President can do to lower gas prices, and yes, I include Bush in that statement too. I was fair minded enough to realize that not ever horrible gas spike was Bush's fault, but I guess there's a lot of conservatives who have no intention of being fair and reasonable.

Oh, and gas prices will probably spike this summer and slowly drop during the fall, like they do almost every single year.

[Adam Griffin]

Oh, and gas prices will probably spike this summer and slowly drop during the fall, like they do almost every single year.

And when they do fall around late September-early October, it'll be AN OBAMA CONSPIRACY, RIGGIN' THE ELECTIONS.

[Tidewater_Wave]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M1WlV7vafk

Hmm gee what about Obama is different from in 2008? I can't think of it for the life of me. Maybe Obama has a different job than he did in 2008 and now he is all of a sudden against higher gas prices. Surely, re-election doesn't have anything to do with wanting prices to come down does it? Romney better have this in an ad. Maybe we should just inflate our tires properly. What a mechanic!

Meh, he said that he wished that oil prices (referring to the spike that was occurring at that point in 2008) would have came more gradually rather than all at once. After that, he mentioned how the United States (particularly its energy and automobile sectors) have to become more adept at adjusting to the reality of the fluctuating cost of energy.

Solar's technically cheaper than nuclear at this point (when factoring in how long it takes to build a nuclear plant and the regulatory process that delays groundbreaking by at least five years). We could make the switch to electric cars or hydrogen fuel cells and all of this would be a moot point.

That's what I've been saying around here. It's not like we don't have the technology now. What he said in the video was a slick and crafty way of saying he wants them to "necessarily skyrocket." I've never heard of low gas prices helping a president either. If prices go down, unemployment and other factors will still be there. Gas prices only hurt a president.

[Adam Griffin]

That's what I've been saying around here. It's not like we don't have the technology now. What he said in the video was a slick and crafty way of saying he wants them to "necessarily skyrocket." I've never heard of low gas prices helping a president either. If prices go down, unemployment and other factors will still be there. Gas prices only hurt a president.

I don't know, I didn't hear it the same way. I heard him basically saying that prices are going to go up regardless and it would have been nicer for them to gradually increase. The only part in that video that I see where you're getting that is when he's talking about manufacturers and whatnot adapting to the environment, which I don't think is necessarily the same thing.

You're very much right. We have all the tools and resources to make the switch. Rather than subsidizing this 100+ year old industry that's among one of the most profitable in the world or worrying about letting oil flow down from Canada so it can be shipped overseas, we should be making massive investments - to the sum of a trillion dollars plus - in solar and hydrogen technologies to completely convert this country within a matter of just a few years.

[Tidewater_Wave]

That's what I've been saying around here. It's not like we don't have the technology now. What he said in the video was a slick and crafty way of saying he wants them to "necessarily skyrocket." I've never heard of low gas prices helping a president either. If prices go down, unemployment and other factors will still be there. Gas prices only hurt a president.

I don't know, I didn't hear it the same way. I heard him basically saying that prices are going to go up regardless and it would have been nicer for them to gradually increase. The only part in that video that I see where you're getting that is when he's talking about manufacturers and whatnot adapting to the environment, which I don't think is necessarily the same thing.

You're very much right. We have all the tools and resources to make the switch. Rather than subsidizing this 100+ year old industry that's among one of the most profitable in the world or worrying about letting oil flow down from Canada so it can be shipped overseas, we should be making massive investments - to the sum of a trillion dollars plus - in solar and hydrogen technologies to completely convert this country within a matter of just a few years.

I mentioned hydrogen powered cars in my environmental policy on the political debate thread. Political donations are the reason we don't have them now. I'm ok getting oil from Canada for other purposes like heating homes. What struck me was him talking about wanting to make us like Europe. We also need to be doing things like including oil and smokestacks in mercury clean up as well as an immediate 20% reduction in green house gases.

[Adam Griffin]

I mentioned hydrogen powered cars in my environmental policy on the political debate thread. Political donations are the reason we don't have them now. I'm ok getting oil from Canada for other purposes like heating homes. What struck me was him talking about wanting to make us like Europe. We also need to be doing things like including oil and smokestacks in mercury clean up as well as an immediate 20% reduction in green house gases.

The result of a solar-powered America done on a public initiative would also have large worldwide implications. Based on some rough calculations I made, we could deploy large-scale solar systems that could provide anywhere from 65-80% (depending on "bulk" costs) of the nation's electric consumption for approximately $750,000,000,000 and the worldwide price of solar would drop by 20-30% nearly instantaneously.

It'll never happen in that capacity, though. Too many people in too many high and low places would resist the government essentially "taking over" a large swath of the energy industry, even if it's through direct market competition, meant infinite energy and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars per year that could offset deficits and unnecessary taxation.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I mentioned hydrogen powered cars in my environmental policy on the political debate thread. Political donations are the reason we don't have them now. I'm ok getting oil from Canada for other purposes like heating homes. What struck me was him talking about wanting to make us like Europe. We also need to be doing things like including oil and smokestacks in mercury clean up as well as an immediate 20% reduction in green house gases.

The result of a solar-powered America done on a public initiative would also have large worldwide implications. Based on some rough calculations I made, we could deploy large-scale solar systems that could provide anywhere from 65-80% (depending on "bulk" costs) of the nation's electric consumption for approximately $750,000,000,000 and the worldwide price of solar would drop by 20-30% nearly instantaneously.

It'll never happen in that capacity, though. Too many people in too many high and low places would resist the government essentially "taking over" a large swath of the energy industry, even if it's through direct market competition, meant infinite energy and perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars per year that could offset deficits and unnecessary taxation.

With the alternative energy solutions in place, cap and trade may be ok as it is now.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

End the subisides for oil companies, and don't propose stupid gas tax holidays... let the market actually control gas prices instead of trying to artificially keep them low, and we would've had alternative fuel sources gaining steam years ago.

[Adam Griffin]

With the alternative energy solutions in place, cap and trade may be ok as it is now.

Believe it or not, I do not fancy cap and trade. I guess maybe because it was originally a Republican pro-business policy. It keeps the control of the energy market in the hands of the private industry and just adds a tax on top of it to further increase the price; the oil barons are still making the same amount of money. The NeoNeocons are somewhat correct in labeling it as an enslavement system. It might increase revenue generation for the government but it would keep the people tied to a energy market where prices are controlled exclusively by those who profit from it.

Of course if we did what I suggested above, there could be separate issues, too. The price of solar might collapse so quickly that instead of buying discount energy from the government, people might go ahead and outrig their homes with solar panels (which is a good thing and should be the end goal). This could leave the project being less financially feasible exclusively out of its own manifestation. We could probably build the proper infrastructure and utility grids and so the same thing with the excess as we want to do with the oil: pump it into other countries.

I generally would like to see energy either be a non-profit (or minimal profiting) industry controlled by Democratically-controlled governments or have it be completely decentralized, which solar will ultimately allow. I would think every conservative would love the idea of solar if for nothing else than the autonomy it gives you.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I'm not big on solar studies. How well does it actually work compared to oil, gas, nuclear energy? Is it better than windmills at least?

[Tidewater_Wave]

End the subisides for oil companies, and don't propose stupid gas tax holidays... let the market actually control gas prices instead of trying to artificially keep them low, and we would've had alternative fuel sources gaining steam years ago.

Agreed, but I would support a gas tax holiday for the sole purpose of exposing the price difference. Actually, to be honest I'd ban the gas tax to relieve the stress for working families.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Everyone with half a clue knew that demand would vastly outstrip supply and gas prices would go up.  But the sh**tty politicians we have running this country into the ground didn't care to fund energy research the way it should have.

[Adam Griffin]

I'm not big on solar studies. How well does it actually work compared to oil, gas, nuclear energy? Is it better than windmills at least?

Compared to windmills, it's far better when looking at it from an overall perspective (where you can use it, the consistency of it, etc). It's automatically better than oil, gas and nuclear - regardless of initial cost per unit of energy - because it's an infinitely renewable source.

For home use, it varies widely but at current prices, the average home could throw up a 4KW solar system for about $20,000 (includes labor and parts; does not include state/federal subsidies available). Finance it for 10 years and that becomes your energy bill, ranging from $100-200 month. It's very feasible now; most people are just still stuck in the mindset that it's not.

Technically, it's about 10-15% more expensive than nuclear at this point and scheduled to reach cost parity at some point in 2015. However, given the confines of building a nuclear plant and not being able to break ground typically for several years after applying for permission, the nuclear plant will effectively be more expensive to build by the time you actually start building it. So even today, it makes more sense to go the solar route, if for no other reason that to get it off the ground a few years sooner.

[Tidewater_Wave]

Everyone with half a clue knew that demand would vastly outstrip supply and gas prices would go up.  But the sh**tty politicians we have running this country into the ground didn't care to fund energy research the way it should have.

I half agree. I think the technology is there but things are prevented from being made public. There's no way anyone can convince me that hydrogen powered cars can't be made and sold now. Take for example, GPS and other computer advancements. They were first used by the military before the public. It's time we made hydrogen powered cars.

[Tidewater_Wave]

I'm not big on solar studies. How well does it actually work compared to oil, gas, nuclear energy? Is it better than windmills at least?

Compared to windmills, it's far better when looking at it from an overall perspective (where you can use it, the consistency of it, etc). It's automatically better than oil, gas and nuclear - regardless of initial cost per unit of energy - because it's an infinitely renewable source.

For home use, it varies widely but at current prices, the average home could throw up a 4KW solar system for about $20,000 (includes labor and parts; does not include state/federal subsidies available). Finance it for 10 years and that becomes your energy bill, ranging from $100-200 month. It's very feasible now; most people are just still stuck in the mindset that it's not.

Technically, it's about 10-15% more expensive than nuclear at this point and scheduled to reach cost parity at some point in 2015. However, given the confines of building a nuclear plant and not being able to break ground typically for several years after applying for permission, the nuclear plant will effectively be more expensive to build by the time you actually start building it. So even today, it makes more sense to go the solar route, if for no other reason that to get it off the ground a few years sooner.

I can be persuaded. Aside from being more expensive per use, would it have to be used as much or as often? When I had my apartment in Altamonte Springs, I rarely used my heating/air conditioning in the winter months and saw electric bills around $55.00 a month. Compare that to July and it's a world of difference.

[Adam Griffin]

I can be persuaded. Aside from being more expensive per use, would it have to be used as much or as often? When I had my apartment in Altamonte Springs, I rarely used my heating/air conditioning in the winter months and saw electric bills around $55.00 a month. Compare that to July and it's a world of difference.

Not sure if I'm following correctly, but energy consumption would be based on your usage, not your form of generation. Winter will obviously be the low time for generation and in your case, consumption, while summer would be peak for both use and consumption. You get a decent amount of light in your neck of the woods, so your efficiency would be better than anywhere else in the US except for the Southwest.

A 4 kW system will, when averaged out, provide roughly 1000 kWh/1 mWh of energy per month (check your utility bill to see how much you use and the variance). Most people with solar panels keep an account with the utility company for buying and selling energy. In your case (depending on usage and system size), you'd probably have to use a little energy in the summer months from the utility company but would run a surplus in the winter, selling the energy back to the company and receiving a credit, which would then be applied to your usage the following summer.  

In other words, unless you're completely cut off from the grid, you would just "ride the wave".

[Tidewater_Wave]

I can be persuaded. Aside from being more expensive per use, would it have to be used as much or as often? When I had my apartment in Altamonte Springs, I rarely used my heating/air conditioning in the winter months and saw electric bills around $55.00 a month. Compare that to July and it's a world of difference.

Not sure if I'm following correctly, but energy consumption would be based on your usage, not your form of generation. Winter will obviously be the low time for generation and in your case, consumption, while summer would be peak for both use and consumption. You get a decent amount of light in your neck of the woods, so your efficiency would be better than anywhere else in the US except for the Southwest.

A 4 kW system will, when averaged out, provide roughly 1000 kWh/1 mWh of energy per month (check your utility bill to see how much you use and the variance). Most people with solar panels keep an account with the utility company for buying and selling energy. In your case (depending on usage and system size), you'd probably have to use a little energy in the summer months from the utility company but would run a surplus in the winter, selling the energy back to the company and receiving a credit, which would then be applied to your usage the following summer.   

I was more just stating my own as well as most people's usage having an effect on the cost of their utilities. I like the idea as long as it's not government run though. It would be an interesting change.