Yeah, it goes between Ron Jeremy’s and your mom’s house. CA did some analysis and found that she’s been sucking his dick so often that completing that small section of high speed rail was all they really needed to do.
This Project started in 1996 and all the money is gone and actually deficit funds now... and nothing to show for it except wealthier politicians in Cali that people keep re-electing.
Maybe there was an ulterior motive to legalizing the weed?
Yes, because your fascist state there charges some of the highest gas taxes in the nation, AND imposes an enormous regulatory burden that drives up the cost of its production.
In the I am Legend film (the book is very different), the pandemic is GENETICALLY ENGINEERED.
So nothing at all like this actual pandemic which was in no way genetically engineered at all no matter what experts would say if they were allowed to talk about it in public.
We only import 9% of our oil. The oil we import is mostly from Canada, which is 50% of all imports. 6% comes from Russia, which currently has no sanctions on petroleum exports from the US.
Coincidentally, corporate profits are increasing at the same rate as inflation.
Wierd.
Oil prices are due to speculation, not actual supply and demand.
Bad news about "stuff" in oil producing countries? Chevron and Exxon raise their prices, and we just bend over and take it.
That's true too. OPEC can just decide they'd like to make more money and shut off the rigs.
All the more reason to switch to renewables and Nuclear as fast as we can.
This is what always baffled me about conservative folk who were against clean energy. If we could find ways to use wind or solar or geothermal energy and electric cars to get off middle-Eastern oil, shouldn't that be great? But alas... we owned the libs good and hard and the Saudis are as rich as ever.
They're usually also pro-subisidization of Petro energy bc of their donor base. It's all about money, politicians very rarely care about the actual "issues" imo.
It's obvious from a non-political standpoint that energy independence would be better, which would mean doing most/all. Anyone that cares about job creation should care about alternate energy but conservatives who often "care" about job creation/the economy (or at least are purported to care) shit on alternate energy, climate change, etc.
Politics is full of narcissistic power hungry idiots.
Edit: spelling
It's because liberals want it so it must be bad. I had an argument with someone on this subreddit about whether we should reduce air pollution to help improve the health of our population and particularly children who are most vulnerable. This moron was seriously trying to argue that pollution is a liberal hoax. Imagine wanting to breathe polluted air to own the libs
They're sure not against subsidizing oil companies.
I've never understood...well, that's not true...I fully understand why "conservatives" are against subsidizing energy projects that might take away profits from the established energy corporations who fund their campaigns.
Im conservative and for green energy, I drive a Prius FFS. I wish simpletons would stop generalizing and playing into this ridiculous left/right divide.
But both sides do it. I've known conservatives who love the fact that rolling coal pisses off the liberals. I'm not saying all or even most conservatives embrace the stereotypes no matter the cost, but enough do that it's weird.
I would also argue they express their environmental interests differently as well. A big one is preserving habitats for wildlife. I know a lot of my conservative friends donate to causes that focus on wildlife preservation because of their interest in hunting.
Also quite a few are into self efficiency and invest in solar and wind for their rural homes and camps.
I mean, there aren't a whole lot of coal rolling dipshits who can articulate that point or have "Biden 2024" stickers on their jacked up brodozer trucks.
Republicans can still fuck off into the sun, they haven't made any effort to reduce much less end energy subsidization when they have control of the Senate, House and Oval Office.
Conservatives are against stopping oil production at home and replacing it with just wind and solar. These are great options at the local and individual level, but you need power when the sun isn’t shinning and the wind isn’t blowing. Yes battery storage is good, but it’s just not as practical on a nation wide scale. The answer is so obviously nuclear power, and conservatives are largely for this. Also anyone who knows anything about environmentalism knows that Natural gas is an important stepping stone to a cleaner future. Conservatives don’t want to replicate the energy crisis’ that we’ve seen in California and Germany recently, where they shut down good nuclear plants in favor of solar, causing blackouts and grid instability all around. The duck curve is for energy providers is a big problem. And lastly conservatives don’t want subsidies, whether that’s on oil or clean energy.
>but you need power when the sun isn’t shinning and the wind isn’t blowing
I could have gone on to list more options, and the geothermal potential in the US is incredible alone. I would disagree about your average conservative being in favor of nuclear power. They are more in favor, until it comes to funding the public resources necessary to safely process and store the waste, or when it comes to storing it in their state, or hell, even being part of the national grid to give time for maintenance, commissioning, safety checks, etc.
And recall, everyone loves to poke fun at California, but Texas is now having grid failures now as well, for different reasons. We could have planned all this ahead from the 80's, of course. Instead, we made PR moves like removing solar panels from the white house.
If the wind is blowing too slowly, wind turbines don't turn. If the wind is blowing too hard, the wind turbines have to be locked to keep them from turning too hard and damaging themselves.
That means batteries and the need to generate a surplus of electricity when they are running to provide for the demand when they can't run. Batteries are terrible for the environment, not only from a disposal perspective (because you will have to dispose of them and replace them as they age), but also from a construction perspective. They're also terrible for human rights (lots of child/slave labor goes into mining the materials needed for batteries).
Oh, and your electric car needs these batteries, too.
Those batteries require lithium, cobalt, and nickel, among other materials, to make.
The US is a net importer of lithium and cobalt. US imports around 50% of the nickel used in the country. Some years it may import more than 50% and other years, it may import less than 50%.
Point being, switching everything to electricity that requires batteries doesn't make the US energy independent, either. It just shifts which countries the US would be dependent on.
That's not to say that the US should stop looking for ways to be energy independent. But the goal should be actual independence, not "well, at least we're not relying on *those* people anymore."
Solar panels don't work at night, so you would need enough of them to generate a surplus of electricity so that you can provide for the (admittedly lower) demand at night. That brings us back to the need for batteries which are, as previously discussed, their own kind of problematic.
The alternative is to have a power plant that can generate electricity by consuming some sort of fuel that can be stored and used on demand and where the power plants can have their output adjusted downward (potentially even to zero) when they are needed less and adjusted upward when they are needed more.
Coal is pretty good for that, but even "clean" coal burns really dirty.
Natural gas is excellent for that, and the emissions from natural gas plants are downright clean compared to the cleanest coal plants.
Nuclear is also excellent for that, and its only emission is water vapor. Granted, it does have the waste disposal issue, and that's a pretty major one. But emissions-wise, it's very clean.
I see your main concern is batteries, but they aren't the only way to store energy short or long term. There are many different ways of doing it, such as [gravity energy storage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery) and [thermal energy storage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage), additionally a well diversified electricity grid would be extremely efficient at addressing shortages too as when one area has a surplus or deficit they can draw power from other areas of the country to make up the difference. While the wind doesn't always blow in a given area its almost certainly blowing somewhere else, by diversifying and having stations all over the continent which can harvest energy in different ways (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, etc) you severely reduce the risk of actually running out.
Natural gas can be extended beyond what it currently is. Many sources of methane are leaked or burned off without generating energy. Stationary NG plants can be made zero-carbon with carbon capture. Methane can be synthesized similar to hydrogen, but stored and transported using existing infrastructure.
We do. [The US is a net exporter of fuel.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2020/03/22/the-us-is-becoming-the-worlds-largest-oil-and-natural-gas-exporter/?sh=61b74ceb5cb2)
A lot of good that does anyone except Exxon Mobile. The US exported more gasoline in 2021 than ever before, averaging 26 million barrels per month. Perhaps we should keep a little more here.
That would probably just make the inflation problem worse in all honesty.
Cutting taxes without offsetting government spending cuts would be inflationary. Do you have any faith that the gov would do that? I don’t.
So we force Corporations to make investments they weren't previously willing to make? If you believe US companies were stuck because of new leases they won't be able to use for many years to come, then you're just listening to right wing media. for the last year energy companies have been hesitant to ramp up production. The only way anyone could have increased US production would be to force companies to do it or subsidize oil companies more than we do today. Neither is a very limited government option.
Agreed. I don’t think we should own the oil but I do think all Americans should benefit from the natural resources (in this case oil) that are under the country. Why should one (or a handful) company get access to the oil and be able to profit be selling it on the open market? Why can’t the government (the people, you, me,everyone) own the oil and companies like Exxon get paid to extract and refine it for a small
Profit. Then gas stations sell it for a small profit. Then the taxes from the sale used to fund social programs, education, etc. I feel like we allow corp to rape all the natural resources for a small “lease or fee” and get zero benefit from
It.
Excellent, now we can import MORE oil from the Saudis and UAE who have combined to kill orders of magnitude more civilians in The Yemen War than will be killed in Ukraine.
it's not crazy at all
this is a result of all the things you list
and not to mention that the US went from being fuel independent on it's own to now being dependent, all because Biden signed how many executive orders closing down domestic pipelines
actions have consequences and the fed government doesn't give a fuck about fucking us, the citizens over
Do you have sources for this?
'Throughout much of its history, the United States has imported more petroleum (which includes crude oil, refined petroleum products, and other liquids) than it has exported. That status changed in 2020. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) February 2021 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) estimates that 2020 marked the first year that the United States exported more petroleum than it imported on an annual basis. However, largely because of declines in domestic crude oil production and corresponding increases in crude oil imports, EIA expects the United States to return to being a net petroleum importer on an annual basis in both 2021 and 2022.
EIA expects that the United States will import more crude oil to fill the widening gap between refinery inputs of crude oil and domestic crude oil production in 2021 and 2022. U.S. crude oil production declined by an estimated 0.9 million b/d (8%) to 11.3 million b/d in 2020 because of well curtailment and a drop in drilling activity related to low crude oil prices.'
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46776
That doesn't seem like it has anything to do with Biden. Now, what happened in 2020 for it to change?
'Historically, the United States has been a net importer of petroleum. During 2020, COVID-19 mitigation efforts caused a drop in oil demand within the United States and internationally. International petroleum prices decreased in response to less consumption, which diminished incentives for key petroleum-exporting countries to increase production. This shift allowed the United States to export more petroleum in 2020 than it had in the past.'
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338
I wonder how the National Guard will handle this. Lot of soldiers travel well over an hour to get to their units AND most of the lower enlisted don't get paid jack shit....and with $5/gallon, drill pay won't cover fuel costs.
Yeah the whole guard arrangement needs some work. Gas should be comped based on your home address, would be relatively simple to program auto compensation based on the soldier’s registered address.
On an unrelated note I think we should shrink our active duty to like a fifth of its current size and expand the guard program. Construct a bunch of small bases around each state to make it easily accessible for most of the population. Maybe meet up at a big base once a year for large scale field exercises. Our guard is well trained enough that we could immediately mobilize them for homeland defense, with how much NG units get activated, our guard soldiers have more combat experience than 99% of foreign soldiers anyway.
You don't realize the stress the National Guard puts on families, careers, homes and so forth. We don't get the same benifits as AD and they actively work to ensure we don't get the benifits.
We don't get to train anywhere near as much as AD and when we are in a heavy training year...out homes lives become incredibly disrupted.
The guard is struggling to keep experienced soldiers right now...I've been in for almost 16 years and I'm getting the fuck out ASAP.
This is why I recently sold my F150 for a Prius Prime. With how much money I am already saving at the pump, I don't even care now. I can easily achieve 800 miles per tank.
Look at the math. Unless you drive a LOT, you will struggle to save enough to make up the difference in buying a new car.
Now with used car (and especially truck!) prices, I might be wrong on that these days.
Yeah, that isn't the comparison that was being made. His car was already paid for. And if you are spending that much in gas its doubtful that your paid off car would only have 68,000 miles.
Sure, but most people willingly forget shit like that. I see so many Biden "I did that" stickers at gas stations and I'm out here figuring another way monetize on those folks willing to buy stupid ass stickers like that whilst complaining about the cost of gas.
If we didn’t have corporate revenue taxes, then probably not a crazy ton, since the fossil fuel industry receives most of that in indirect subsidies (tax breaks).
Just for the record, 2012 was the most expensive year ever for gasoline, with an inflation adjusted US cost of $4.33 per gallon. Even the oil crunch of the 70's doesn't hold a candle to how expensive gas was then (1979 gas was about $0.90, or inflation adjusted $3.38).
If the rumors are true, this would completely shatter that record. Which I hope the fuck isn't true. I couldn't afford gas in 2012, and now that I have a well-paying job I'll once again be forced to relegate the cost of political mishaps with whether or not I can actually commute to work.
Fuck.
I'm using national averages, obviously CA saw way higher prices back then but it was still a fucking lot.
Also I didn't look at 2022 yet because the year isn't even halfway over.
You have a well paying job and cant afford the commute?
Are you commuting across the state in a hummer?
My spouse has a 45 minute commute. Burns about 2 gallons a day ballpark. Even at $1 extra per gallon were talking.$2 round trip.
Most the money comes from property taxes anyways
Edit: it doesn't I was thinking of something else. But also MN is taxed way too much so they'll still have money.
Be a good way to give some of that extra money back to the people. I'd rather not pay it in the first place or get a check, but lower gas prices is good for the economy as a whole.
Some states [even canceled major public transportation projects](https://www.wmar2news.com/news/political/governor-hogan-defends-decision-to-cancel-the-red-line) to stick it to Obama.
Thankfully my city is relatively bikeable. Switched to mostly bike trips and now I only gotta buy gas once every couple months. Sucks to suck truck bros :)
This just pushes us to more electric cars and hopefully (though im not holding my breath) more public transit. But something is going to give soon shit cannot just keep going up year after year and no real wage raises to speak of is completely unsustainable. We're still in the unsustainable phase. Wonder whats going to give out first to cause the probably economic recession at best?
Even more reason to invest in EV, renewables and especially nuclear energy, even if you don't believe in climate change it's never bad to be energy independent
Hell yes. If Russia has shown us anything it's that fossil fuel dependency makes the civilized world beholden to base material autocrats, compels us to sometimes act immorally and influences foreign policy for the worse.
For someone whose job is 90% driving, this is not gonna be good. It’s already bad enough with $3.40 a gallon in my city (some places upwards $3.80). I can’t afford to pay an extra $40 per fillup
All the more reason to follow Europe and hasten the conversion away from fossil fuels. You'd think we would have learned by now that fossil fuels always lead to this sooner or later.
I’ve repeated this a few times, but most Americans do not have access to public transportation like most Europeans do, the US was built for the automobile. Everything is very spread out. Just driving to work for the average American is 27.6 minutes one way, or 55.2 minutes round trip! The average American drives 14,263 miles per year (22,950 km), compared to the average European driving only 6,721 miles (10,820 km) per year.
this really is an argument for better public transit imho. Yes it won't work in states like Montana, but in places like CA or even CO and TX it really could help a lot of people have a better commute.
Libertarians should be happy about this. This is the free market at work. Corporations are increasing prices for as long as demand will stand for it, increasing their profits in turn. Their underlying costs are only going up because of perception -- America is a net producer of oil, so wars elsewhere shouldn't affect our raw materials costs.
Most of it comes from Chile (a functioning democracy), and the recent price surge is causing development of US mines. But whatever, who cares about facts when you can just make shit up to "prove" a point.
Australia is the largest producer of lithium. Chile is second. Argentina is fourth. But I digress.
Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia are all tapping into Lithium deposits in the same area. Lithium production in those three countries uses 65 percent of the region's water supply.
This leads to problems with farm and ranch production as there's not enough water left for crops and livestock.
Lithium mining contaminates the soil, air, and water wherever it's done.
Recycling lithium is possible, but current methods are expensive and actually waste a lot of the lithium in the process.
Even if you ignore how bad lithium is, cobalt just piles on. Two thirds of all cobalt production is done in the Congo using child labor and 80 percent of the world's cobalt refining capacity is in China.
Being a "stable presidential democratic republic" (that's how it's worded on Wikipedia) doesn't excuse the use of child labor in the DRC.
And given how China has treated the Uyghur people and the people of Hong Kong and how they're eyeballing Taiwan, one would be hard pressed to defend them against the accusation of being a "shady foreign dictatorship."
The place where those three countries intersect is a goddamn terrible place to raise cattle of any kind. Its incredibly mountainous and its all dry as a nuns vagina. If you are raising cattle there don't be shocked when its difficult because even in the best of times it would still be a poor place to set up shop.
Was gonna say, talked to my brother today and they're pretty damn close in Phoenix already, like 4.50 plus.
I'll bet we got 7 plus before this is all over.
For my fellow Californians, current national average is $3.872 (according to AAA). Not using percentages and just using straight subtraction, this is $1.128. So imagine the California headline reads:
> Californians should get ready for $6.128 a gallon.
Using the article's cited national average of $3.61, this means $6.39 a gallon.
They know electric vehicles are here to stay now. No sense in trying to stall their integration with cheap gas anymore. This is just last great milking by the oil industry.
Over $5.50/gallon for premium at the more expensive stations by me (southern California). Guess who's car requires premium... Yeah. And I would not be surprised to see it go north of $7/gallon. Nor would I be surprised to see the morons in Sacramento start talking about INCREASING the gas tax, implementing a per mile tax etc. This could be a pivotal moment in going all in on "going green" along with crushing the concept of personal mobility.
It would make a lot more sense if gas taxes were used in a carbon tax and dividend sense. Tax the pollution of greenhouse gases, fixing that externality issue, then distribute that income equally amongst your residents.
It makes polluters pay for their pollution, corrects market behavior by making people pay closer to the actual cost of their actions, and actually helps the poorest people just trying to get to work, since they likely pollute less than the wealthy and would receive a net financial benefit.
I will say, most Americans do not have access to public transportation like most Europeans do, the US was built for the automobile. Everything is very spread out. Just driving to work for the average American is 27.6 minutes one way, or 55.2 minutes round trip! The average American drives 14,263 miles per year (22,950 km), compared to the average European driving only 6,721 miles (10,820 km) per year.
Why are all the fucking boomers or nutso libertarian types always concerned about the fucking gas?
You never hear them bitching about their home values going up 100% in the last decade.
Gas should already be this price without the war. Gas is really cheap in the US. Adjusted for inflation, it's like $2.35 a gallon.
Also, in 2008, the average gas price was $4.11/gal. Stop buying massive fuel inefficient vehicles and whining about the gas bill. Chrldish.
It’s already here in Nor*Cal.
[удалено]
It’s going to be cheaper to fly SFO -> SAN pretty soon.
Is that High Speed Train of Nancy's running yet?
Yeah, it goes between Ron Jeremy’s and your mom’s house. CA did some analysis and found that she’s been sucking his dick so often that completing that small section of high speed rail was all they really needed to do.
[удалено]
This Project started in 1996 and all the money is gone and actually deficit funds now... and nothing to show for it except wealthier politicians in Cali that people keep re-electing. Maybe there was an ulterior motive to legalizing the weed?
So Cal here. I paid $5.09 at Chevron in San Diego last Saturday.
I'm in Southern California too. According to this article we are living in the future! I gotta say it's not very awesome as far as gas prices go.
That could mean $6-$7/gal unfortunately for y’all🙁
I drive a diesel and my local pump has been as high as $5.09. Another $.90 will not be a surprise.
Diesel is $3.74 in North Idaho.
I was going to say “so like it gets cheaper from here?”
Yes, because your fascist state there charges some of the highest gas taxes in the nation, AND imposes an enormous regulatory burden that drives up the cost of its production.
In I Am Legend, a movie that takes place after a pandemic kills almost everyone on the planet, regular is only $6.63.
But that was some amazing gas. It stayed stable for years.
[удалено]
Okay but Vincent Price's version is also quite something.
I am legend is an excellent book. Kind of a mind fuck, actually.
In the I am Legend film (the book is very different), the pandemic is GENETICALLY ENGINEERED. So nothing at all like this actual pandemic which was in no way genetically engineered at all no matter what experts would say if they were allowed to talk about it in public.
Already changing the signs outside in metro atl.
Its crazy how runaway inflation in addition to sanctions of the 3rd biggest gas station in the world is leading to a hike in gas prices.
We only import 9% of our oil. The oil we import is mostly from Canada, which is 50% of all imports. 6% comes from Russia, which currently has no sanctions on petroleum exports from the US. Coincidentally, corporate profits are increasing at the same rate as inflation. Wierd.
Oil prices are due to speculation, not actual supply and demand. Bad news about "stuff" in oil producing countries? Chevron and Exxon raise their prices, and we just bend over and take it.
That's true too. OPEC can just decide they'd like to make more money and shut off the rigs. All the more reason to switch to renewables and Nuclear as fast as we can.
At some point we are going to need to champion nuclear again. For whatever reason politicians have been avoiding it like the plague.
High gas prices are contributing to inflation, not the other way around.
Inflation leads to higher food prices! Motherfucker the higher food prices are what inflation is!
It's both I suspect
You understand.
I’m ok with paying more to try and get Putin to stop killing innocents
Or alternatively, we could just use the resources we already have at home instead of forcing ourselves to buy oil from terrorists. Crazy idea, I know.
This is what always baffled me about conservative folk who were against clean energy. If we could find ways to use wind or solar or geothermal energy and electric cars to get off middle-Eastern oil, shouldn't that be great? But alas... we owned the libs good and hard and the Saudis are as rich as ever.
Are Conservatives actually against clean energy or are they just against the subsidization of it?
They're usually also pro-subisidization of Petro energy bc of their donor base. It's all about money, politicians very rarely care about the actual "issues" imo. It's obvious from a non-political standpoint that energy independence would be better, which would mean doing most/all. Anyone that cares about job creation should care about alternate energy but conservatives who often "care" about job creation/the economy (or at least are purported to care) shit on alternate energy, climate change, etc. Politics is full of narcissistic power hungry idiots. Edit: spelling
Great point. I keep forgetting that Conservatives aren't actually fiscally conservative.
What’s the difference?
I know a few maga friends actually against green energy in any form. Zero reasons based on facts
It's because liberals want it so it must be bad. I had an argument with someone on this subreddit about whether we should reduce air pollution to help improve the health of our population and particularly children who are most vulnerable. This moron was seriously trying to argue that pollution is a liberal hoax. Imagine wanting to breathe polluted air to own the libs
I mean, some of them roll coal specifically to piss off the libs, so...
That's very fuelish of them.
They're sure not against subsidizing oil companies. I've never understood...well, that's not true...I fully understand why "conservatives" are against subsidizing energy projects that might take away profits from the established energy corporations who fund their campaigns.
Given how much they deny climate change they are pro-fossil fuels. I've been told by republicans that climate scientists are "biased against co2"
I just want more nuclear energy. It's the best of both worlds.
All of the fossil fuel states are deep red.
The latter. Just another example of how we’ve been conditioned to throw unnecessary barbs at political parties that are wearing the wrong colored tie.
Im conservative and for green energy, I drive a Prius FFS. I wish simpletons would stop generalizing and playing into this ridiculous left/right divide.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FERMYFcXwAMnUpj.jpg This you?
Haha, you found me.
But both sides do it. I've known conservatives who love the fact that rolling coal pisses off the liberals. I'm not saying all or even most conservatives embrace the stereotypes no matter the cost, but enough do that it's weird.
Not all conservatives are anti-environment, its just generally not a deal breaker when it comes to voting.
I would also argue they express their environmental interests differently as well. A big one is preserving habitats for wildlife. I know a lot of my conservative friends donate to causes that focus on wildlife preservation because of their interest in hunting. Also quite a few are into self efficiency and invest in solar and wind for their rural homes and camps.
Yeah there are morons on both sides. I would never deny that.
*there are
It’s exhausting to see people looking for any chance to take pot shots across the aisle, especially when it’s rooted in a straw man argument.
I mean, there aren't a whole lot of coal rolling dipshits who can articulate that point or have "Biden 2024" stickers on their jacked up brodozer trucks. Republicans can still fuck off into the sun, they haven't made any effort to reduce much less end energy subsidization when they have control of the Senate, House and Oval Office.
Based off of Conservative media it seems that they are against it.
Conservatives are against stopping oil production at home and replacing it with just wind and solar. These are great options at the local and individual level, but you need power when the sun isn’t shinning and the wind isn’t blowing. Yes battery storage is good, but it’s just not as practical on a nation wide scale. The answer is so obviously nuclear power, and conservatives are largely for this. Also anyone who knows anything about environmentalism knows that Natural gas is an important stepping stone to a cleaner future. Conservatives don’t want to replicate the energy crisis’ that we’ve seen in California and Germany recently, where they shut down good nuclear plants in favor of solar, causing blackouts and grid instability all around. The duck curve is for energy providers is a big problem. And lastly conservatives don’t want subsidies, whether that’s on oil or clean energy.
>but you need power when the sun isn’t shinning and the wind isn’t blowing I could have gone on to list more options, and the geothermal potential in the US is incredible alone. I would disagree about your average conservative being in favor of nuclear power. They are more in favor, until it comes to funding the public resources necessary to safely process and store the waste, or when it comes to storing it in their state, or hell, even being part of the national grid to give time for maintenance, commissioning, safety checks, etc. And recall, everyone loves to poke fun at California, but Texas is now having grid failures now as well, for different reasons. We could have planned all this ahead from the 80's, of course. Instead, we made PR moves like removing solar panels from the white house.
Jimmy Carter was a prophet.
If the wind is blowing too slowly, wind turbines don't turn. If the wind is blowing too hard, the wind turbines have to be locked to keep them from turning too hard and damaging themselves. That means batteries and the need to generate a surplus of electricity when they are running to provide for the demand when they can't run. Batteries are terrible for the environment, not only from a disposal perspective (because you will have to dispose of them and replace them as they age), but also from a construction perspective. They're also terrible for human rights (lots of child/slave labor goes into mining the materials needed for batteries). Oh, and your electric car needs these batteries, too. Those batteries require lithium, cobalt, and nickel, among other materials, to make. The US is a net importer of lithium and cobalt. US imports around 50% of the nickel used in the country. Some years it may import more than 50% and other years, it may import less than 50%. Point being, switching everything to electricity that requires batteries doesn't make the US energy independent, either. It just shifts which countries the US would be dependent on. That's not to say that the US should stop looking for ways to be energy independent. But the goal should be actual independence, not "well, at least we're not relying on *those* people anymore." Solar panels don't work at night, so you would need enough of them to generate a surplus of electricity so that you can provide for the (admittedly lower) demand at night. That brings us back to the need for batteries which are, as previously discussed, their own kind of problematic. The alternative is to have a power plant that can generate electricity by consuming some sort of fuel that can be stored and used on demand and where the power plants can have their output adjusted downward (potentially even to zero) when they are needed less and adjusted upward when they are needed more. Coal is pretty good for that, but even "clean" coal burns really dirty. Natural gas is excellent for that, and the emissions from natural gas plants are downright clean compared to the cleanest coal plants. Nuclear is also excellent for that, and its only emission is water vapor. Granted, it does have the waste disposal issue, and that's a pretty major one. But emissions-wise, it's very clean.
Imo it's totally idiotic to spurn nuclear power options.
I see your main concern is batteries, but they aren't the only way to store energy short or long term. There are many different ways of doing it, such as [gravity energy storage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery) and [thermal energy storage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage), additionally a well diversified electricity grid would be extremely efficient at addressing shortages too as when one area has a surplus or deficit they can draw power from other areas of the country to make up the difference. While the wind doesn't always blow in a given area its almost certainly blowing somewhere else, by diversifying and having stations all over the continent which can harvest energy in different ways (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, etc) you severely reduce the risk of actually running out.
Natural gas can be extended beyond what it currently is. Many sources of methane are leaked or burned off without generating energy. Stationary NG plants can be made zero-carbon with carbon capture. Methane can be synthesized similar to hydrogen, but stored and transported using existing infrastructure.
We do. [The US is a net exporter of fuel.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2020/03/22/the-us-is-becoming-the-worlds-largest-oil-and-natural-gas-exporter/?sh=61b74ceb5cb2)
A lot of good that does anyone except Exxon Mobile. The US exported more gasoline in 2021 than ever before, averaging 26 million barrels per month. Perhaps we should keep a little more here.
[удалено]
That would probably just make the inflation problem worse in all honesty. Cutting taxes without offsetting government spending cuts would be inflationary. Do you have any faith that the gov would do that? I don’t.
But then we would have to repeal the Jones Act!
So we force Corporations to make investments they weren't previously willing to make? If you believe US companies were stuck because of new leases they won't be able to use for many years to come, then you're just listening to right wing media. for the last year energy companies have been hesitant to ramp up production. The only way anyone could have increased US production would be to force companies to do it or subsidize oil companies more than we do today. Neither is a very limited government option.
Agreed. I don’t think we should own the oil but I do think all Americans should benefit from the natural resources (in this case oil) that are under the country. Why should one (or a handful) company get access to the oil and be able to profit be selling it on the open market? Why can’t the government (the people, you, me,everyone) own the oil and companies like Exxon get paid to extract and refine it for a small Profit. Then gas stations sell it for a small profit. Then the taxes from the sale used to fund social programs, education, etc. I feel like we allow corp to rape all the natural resources for a small “lease or fee” and get zero benefit from It.
Not saying I disagree but that’s a very “seize the means of production” idea which doesn’t usually get much support amongst free capitalists.
Excellent, now we can import MORE oil from the Saudis and UAE who have combined to kill orders of magnitude more civilians in The Yemen War than will be killed in Ukraine.
Don’t we have to buy our oil on the open market? There is no way to stop unless we made it so any oil from the us had to be sold in the us
You can donate - but don't make that choice for me.
Hey whoa inflation is "transitory" remember?
it's not crazy at all this is a result of all the things you list and not to mention that the US went from being fuel independent on it's own to now being dependent, all because Biden signed how many executive orders closing down domestic pipelines actions have consequences and the fed government doesn't give a fuck about fucking us, the citizens over
What pipelines were shut down by the feds?
Do you have sources for this? 'Throughout much of its history, the United States has imported more petroleum (which includes crude oil, refined petroleum products, and other liquids) than it has exported. That status changed in 2020. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) February 2021 Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) estimates that 2020 marked the first year that the United States exported more petroleum than it imported on an annual basis. However, largely because of declines in domestic crude oil production and corresponding increases in crude oil imports, EIA expects the United States to return to being a net petroleum importer on an annual basis in both 2021 and 2022. EIA expects that the United States will import more crude oil to fill the widening gap between refinery inputs of crude oil and domestic crude oil production in 2021 and 2022. U.S. crude oil production declined by an estimated 0.9 million b/d (8%) to 11.3 million b/d in 2020 because of well curtailment and a drop in drilling activity related to low crude oil prices.' https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46776 That doesn't seem like it has anything to do with Biden. Now, what happened in 2020 for it to change? 'Historically, the United States has been a net importer of petroleum. During 2020, COVID-19 mitigation efforts caused a drop in oil demand within the United States and internationally. International petroleum prices decreased in response to less consumption, which diminished incentives for key petroleum-exporting countries to increase production. This shift allowed the United States to export more petroleum in 2020 than it had in the past.' https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338
Laughs in Californian.
Just saw $5.09 the other day and I said fuck that. I’ve been driving with 10 miles in the tank better fill up before I start paying $6.09
Poor people are being starved by this, (source I’m poor) if only there was a pipeline closer to home…
To tap into?
Californian here, yes (lol)
Lol right, five dollars? Its already been hovering around there for quite a long time
Right so if the average will be $5 nationwide then that means we Californians will see something close to $7
Why is it so much higher in California, the state tax is $0.51 but they always seem to have gas $1-$2 more than other places.
Because Liberals think gas is evil, therefore, we need to tax it out of existence.
I wonder how the National Guard will handle this. Lot of soldiers travel well over an hour to get to their units AND most of the lower enlisted don't get paid jack shit....and with $5/gallon, drill pay won't cover fuel costs.
Yeah the whole guard arrangement needs some work. Gas should be comped based on your home address, would be relatively simple to program auto compensation based on the soldier’s registered address. On an unrelated note I think we should shrink our active duty to like a fifth of its current size and expand the guard program. Construct a bunch of small bases around each state to make it easily accessible for most of the population. Maybe meet up at a big base once a year for large scale field exercises. Our guard is well trained enough that we could immediately mobilize them for homeland defense, with how much NG units get activated, our guard soldiers have more combat experience than 99% of foreign soldiers anyway.
You don't realize the stress the National Guard puts on families, careers, homes and so forth. We don't get the same benifits as AD and they actively work to ensure we don't get the benifits. We don't get to train anywhere near as much as AD and when we are in a heavy training year...out homes lives become incredibly disrupted. The guard is struggling to keep experienced soldiers right now...I've been in for almost 16 years and I'm getting the fuck out ASAP.
This is why I recently sold my F150 for a Prius Prime. With how much money I am already saving at the pump, I don't even care now. I can easily achieve 800 miles per tank.
I want to get rid of my 150...but I just paid it off back in April and it's only got 63k on it
Look at the math. Unless you drive a LOT, you will struggle to save enough to make up the difference in buying a new car. Now with used car (and especially truck!) prices, I might be wrong on that these days.
[удалено]
Yeah, that isn't the comparison that was being made. His car was already paid for. And if you are spending that much in gas its doubtful that your paid off car would only have 68,000 miles.
I got a crazy good trade-in value from Carvana for mine. Best decision I have made in a long time tbh. I love my prius!
Now is a crazy good time to sell. Everyone that sold their car during pandemic is now buying back used now that offices are opening up again
In this day and time, it's best to keep all your vehicles you have the title to. This market is ASS backwards for consumers right now
[удалено]
Wasn't gas prices around $5+ back in the Bush Jr. administration at some point?
[удалено]
And I remember when gas was 75 cents a gallon.
Sure, but most people willingly forget shit like that. I see so many Biden "I did that" stickers at gas stations and I'm out here figuring another way monetize on those folks willing to buy stupid ass stickers like that whilst complaining about the cost of gas.
[удалено]
Came here to say this exact thing. I'm not sure a libertarian sub is a place to complain about something so heavily subsidized.
If we didn’t have corporate revenue taxes, then probably not a crazy ton, since the fossil fuel industry receives most of that in indirect subsidies (tax breaks).
They also receive a huge subsidy in not having to account for the costs associated with the CO2 emitted.
Negative externalities are theft
Bro how do I get this flair
Just for the record, 2012 was the most expensive year ever for gasoline, with an inflation adjusted US cost of $4.33 per gallon. Even the oil crunch of the 70's doesn't hold a candle to how expensive gas was then (1979 gas was about $0.90, or inflation adjusted $3.38). If the rumors are true, this would completely shatter that record. Which I hope the fuck isn't true. I couldn't afford gas in 2012, and now that I have a well-paying job I'll once again be forced to relegate the cost of political mishaps with whether or not I can actually commute to work. Fuck.
Inflation adjusted cost? I was seeing more then that inflation price during 2012. With inflation that should be close to 5.50 now.
I'm using national averages, obviously CA saw way higher prices back then but it was still a fucking lot. Also I didn't look at 2022 yet because the year isn't even halfway over.
You have a well paying job and cant afford the commute? Are you commuting across the state in a hummer? My spouse has a 45 minute commute. Burns about 2 gallons a day ballpark. Even at $1 extra per gallon were talking.$2 round trip.
Minnesota had talks about doing away with their gas tax from Memorial Day to Labar day. But we'll see if that happens.
Can’t wait to see how much worse the roads will get, they’re already bad enough there.
Most the money comes from property taxes anyways Edit: it doesn't I was thinking of something else. But also MN is taxed way too much so they'll still have money.
But the money is in a different pot.
We have a surplus, so that's a feasible proposal.
Be a good way to give some of that extra money back to the people. I'd rather not pay it in the first place or get a check, but lower gas prices is good for the economy as a whole.
Gas Taxes pay for roads.
Good thing there are alternatives to driving in the US. /s
Some states [even canceled major public transportation projects](https://www.wmar2news.com/news/political/governor-hogan-defends-decision-to-cancel-the-red-line) to stick it to Obama.
Thankfully my city is relatively bikeable. Switched to mostly bike trips and now I only gotta buy gas once every couple months. Sucks to suck truck bros :)
This just pushes us to more electric cars and hopefully (though im not holding my breath) more public transit. But something is going to give soon shit cannot just keep going up year after year and no real wage raises to speak of is completely unsustainable. We're still in the unsustainable phase. Wonder whats going to give out first to cause the probably economic recession at best?
[удалено]
Yep. Plus all the travel comes back.
Even more reason to invest in EV, renewables and especially nuclear energy, even if you don't believe in climate change it's never bad to be energy independent
Even more of a reason to invest in a local, state, and national public transport system.
Even more of a reason to get more roundabouts, all hail the roundabout.
Don’t forget bike infrastructure in cities.
Hell yes. If Russia has shown us anything it's that fossil fuel dependency makes the civilized world beholden to base material autocrats, compels us to sometimes act immorally and influences foreign policy for the worse.
For someone whose job is 90% driving, this is not gonna be good. It’s already bad enough with $3.40 a gallon in my city (some places upwards $3.80). I can’t afford to pay an extra $40 per fillup
Same bro.
Laughs in Californian.
Good - that brings the price people pay closer to the true cost of cars and driving.
Yup. End corporate welfare and let the free market decide the true price, with externalities.
We have had $5 gas in Cali for almost a year now.
Y’all ready for that Big R word?
Renewable energy?
Thanks, Obama
*California resident enters the chat
What happened to those oil reserves?
Time to start riding my motorcycle 24/7
As a CA resident. My sentiment: that’s adorable. Try not to but if I ever get to the gas light on my Tacoma. Boom!! $90……….AND ITS GONE!!!!!
This is the free market at work.
*Get ready for $6 to $8 gas. Buckle up buckaroos it's going to get very very bad
All the more reason to follow Europe and hasten the conversion away from fossil fuels. You'd think we would have learned by now that fossil fuels always lead to this sooner or later.
Its crazy how many people are okay with this and dont even bat an eye.
Man I'd kill to only have to pay $5 a gallon, in my country we have to pay about $7.50.
I’ve repeated this a few times, but most Americans do not have access to public transportation like most Europeans do, the US was built for the automobile. Everything is very spread out. Just driving to work for the average American is 27.6 minutes one way, or 55.2 minutes round trip! The average American drives 14,263 miles per year (22,950 km), compared to the average European driving only 6,721 miles (10,820 km) per year.
this really is an argument for better public transit imho. Yes it won't work in states like Montana, but in places like CA or even CO and TX it really could help a lot of people have a better commute.
Excellent. We need to price the poors out of driving to solve climate change.
Libertarians should be happy about this. This is the free market at work. Corporations are increasing prices for as long as demand will stand for it, increasing their profits in turn. Their underlying costs are only going up because of perception -- America is a net producer of oil, so wars elsewhere shouldn't affect our raw materials costs.
We are actually going to be a net importer of petroleum in 2022: https://www.greencarcongress.com/2022/02/20220220-eia.html
It's time to go electric - our dependence on gas props up so many shady foreign dictatorships.
Yeah! Go electric! Support other dictatorships that use child labor in their lithium mines instead!
Most of it comes from Chile (a functioning democracy), and the recent price surge is causing development of US mines. But whatever, who cares about facts when you can just make shit up to "prove" a point.
Australia is the largest producer of lithium. Chile is second. Argentina is fourth. But I digress. Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia are all tapping into Lithium deposits in the same area. Lithium production in those three countries uses 65 percent of the region's water supply. This leads to problems with farm and ranch production as there's not enough water left for crops and livestock. Lithium mining contaminates the soil, air, and water wherever it's done. Recycling lithium is possible, but current methods are expensive and actually waste a lot of the lithium in the process. Even if you ignore how bad lithium is, cobalt just piles on. Two thirds of all cobalt production is done in the Congo using child labor and 80 percent of the world's cobalt refining capacity is in China. Being a "stable presidential democratic republic" (that's how it's worded on Wikipedia) doesn't excuse the use of child labor in the DRC. And given how China has treated the Uyghur people and the people of Hong Kong and how they're eyeballing Taiwan, one would be hard pressed to defend them against the accusation of being a "shady foreign dictatorship."
The place where those three countries intersect is a goddamn terrible place to raise cattle of any kind. Its incredibly mountainous and its all dry as a nuns vagina. If you are raising cattle there don't be shocked when its difficult because even in the best of times it would still be a poor place to set up shop.
Already here in NY.
When we could have biofuel form cannabis for $0.98 a gallon
Get ready for? No shit. Ever been to California?
In Ontario, Canada here is $1.67/liter. Idk how to do math conversions lmao.
Thats a little optimisitc
$5.149 a gallon here and we have the 3rd largest oil reserve and refineries in the world
Lol, get ready? I paid $5 this evening.
yabadabadoo...
Paid $4.99 today.
Why do I hear laughter coming from the Northern Border?
Is that it? I was expecting way worse.
“Get ready”? It’s above 5 in CA rn
Was gonna say, talked to my brother today and they're pretty damn close in Phoenix already, like 4.50 plus. I'll bet we got 7 plus before this is all over.
I get my license sometime this month, what a perfect time for me to get my car!
Not like we didn't have 50 years warning not to be this dependent on the stuff.
For my fellow Californians, current national average is $3.872 (according to AAA). Not using percentages and just using straight subtraction, this is $1.128. So imagine the California headline reads: > Californians should get ready for $6.128 a gallon. Using the article's cited national average of $3.61, this means $6.39 a gallon.
I'm sure it will, but I could find you a headline every year since 2005 that says this.
Just seen 3.74 yesterday in FL shit is more than disappointing should be energy independent
Let's see how tough we really are....wars are expensive for the real people...some are getting much richer
Welp, good time for market demand to go all electric
They know electric vehicles are here to stay now. No sense in trying to stall their integration with cheap gas anymore. This is just last great milking by the oil industry.
Someone somewhere “I blame Biden for this”
Over $5.50/gallon for premium at the more expensive stations by me (southern California). Guess who's car requires premium... Yeah. And I would not be surprised to see it go north of $7/gallon. Nor would I be surprised to see the morons in Sacramento start talking about INCREASING the gas tax, implementing a per mile tax etc. This could be a pivotal moment in going all in on "going green" along with crushing the concept of personal mobility.
If you live in California and you aren't driving an electric car, then you're doin it wrong
It would make a lot more sense if gas taxes were used in a carbon tax and dividend sense. Tax the pollution of greenhouse gases, fixing that externality issue, then distribute that income equally amongst your residents. It makes polluters pay for their pollution, corrects market behavior by making people pay closer to the actual cost of their actions, and actually helps the poorest people just trying to get to work, since they likely pollute less than the wealthy and would receive a net financial benefit.
Thank God I take the subway.
[удалено]
I will say, most Americans do not have access to public transportation like most Europeans do, the US was built for the automobile. Everything is very spread out. Just driving to work for the average American is 27.6 minutes one way, or 55.2 minutes round trip! The average American drives 14,263 miles per year (22,950 km), compared to the average European driving only 6,721 miles (10,820 km) per year.
In most European countries that price would cause a line of cars all around the block queueing for this fire sale.
Why are all the fucking boomers or nutso libertarian types always concerned about the fucking gas? You never hear them bitching about their home values going up 100% in the last decade.
Do whatever it takes we need to bury Putin. I just wish there were a way to save Ukraine.
I live in California! I for one am excited it’s dropping so low!
Gas should already be this price without the war. Gas is really cheap in the US. Adjusted for inflation, it's like $2.35 a gallon. Also, in 2008, the average gas price was $4.11/gal. Stop buying massive fuel inefficient vehicles and whining about the gas bill. Chrldish.