|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.13.68.154
In Reply to: RE: Oil Consumption In The U.S. posted by Inmate51 on November 24, 2021 at 14:15:41
I think gas prices should be high.
It's grossly inconvenient, and its the only thing that will provide the motivation for us to adopt fuel-efficient vehicles. I'm guessing gas at $15-$20 per gallon should force our collective hand.
Follow Ups:
Too much taking things for granted for too long by a society that feels entitled to do so
and then is shocked - SHOCKED! - that there are consequences to their complacency
and lack of foresight.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Joe the plumber can't afford $100,000 Teslas and there are not enough 3rd world child labor to mine enough lithium to make that faux pipe dream come true. Not to mention the lack of finite "fossil fuel" lithium.
The green energy scam electric car "tech" is only trading one fossil fuel for another. The only green in green energy scams are the GREEN CA$H taxpayers are being bilked out of.
I would be all over "renewable energy" if is was actually real. If it was renewable and real, it would NOT REQUIRE FORCED SUBSIDIES BY ROBBING TAXPAYERS. The stock market and consumer base would make it happen on its own. That is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE.
They sell Tesla's for $35K. I have a friend that sends me similar incorrect references to how not green, green energy is. You can and should do your own research, what I found was that they were almost entirely wrong. You can start with lithium and see what a small percentage it is of energy storage. And what the projections are.
They still cost $100K without subsidies. Taxpayers are picking up the tab and have since day one. Elon Musk is the largest consumer of corporate welfare in the USA and would be bankrupt a long time ago without it.
If anyone is interested in the actual facts:
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/03/tesla-subsidies-how-much/
While they make billions.....
Perish the thought !
a
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Your report has lies of omissions. It states Tesla "only" received $2.1 BILLION in subsidies total.It conveniently omits all of the forced taxpayer funded sales subsidies that historically have ranged from $10-20K/vehicle.
In 2020 alone, that would have been 500,000 x $[10-20],000 or $[5-10] BILLION in additional subsidies omitted/year from your report. $5 BILLION/year is more than twice what your misleading report states that Tesla has received in total.
Multiply that $[5-10] BILLION for every year Tesla sold cars and your report will be little more than thinly veiled green energy scam propaganda.
Anyone can succeed in business if their R&D, development, manufacturing and sales are funded by taxpayers.
Edits: 11/25/21 11/25/21 11/25/21
Thank-you for the clarification. I didn't realize that Tesla received the tax credits, all those car buyers must have been really disappointed. And thank-you for the math lesson, $35K + 10/20K = $100,000.
I'm just curious, how do the oil drilling subsidies work? Do the drillers pay the subsidies to the government?
You act as if Tesla doesn't get subsidies for 3rd world child labor lithium mining while hiding the carbon footprint overseas ???All of the off-shored labor does NOT pay US taxes (federal, state, local, corp, employment, etc.). Moving energy (or any) jobs offshore, removes the tax base from the USA.
You fail to indicate that $35+K Tesla was only recently introduced in 2019 and that Tesla has NOT had such offerings for the majority of their existence.
When we first considered them, taxpayer funded purchase incentives were quoted by the salesman to the tune of $25K.
Edits: 11/25/21 11/25/21 11/25/21
Do you mean cobalt? Cobalt and lithium are different elements. Not all elements are the same thing, which is why they have different names. It can be confusing, if you do some searches on the internet, it should help to explain it. Just like subsidies paid to an industry and tax credits paid to a consumer, they are different things.
Putting taxpayer money in Tesla's left or right pockets is still putting taxpayer money in Tesla's pockets (even if you are laundering first). Your faux attempt at splitting hairs is mute.
This type of "logic" is synonymous with using a shell company (which is generally illegal) to obfuscate/launder the monetary trail. This "logic" is similar to Mao'Chi lying about paying the CCP-Wuhan-19-Viral-Lab "directly". While "directly" was technically true, he paid a shell company which made the payments on his behalf which equates to the same thing. No difference here, the money ends up in Tesla's pocket(s) in the form of artificially inflated sales profits.
If the taxpayers aren't funding the Tesla's sales incentives, the cars would not be sold in the volumes they have and Telsa would be filing Chapter 11. Simple fact.
As for splitting-hairs over the spelling of the limited fossil-fuel supply of battery raw materials mined overseas, that is another feeble attempt at obfuscation. Same issues apply irrespective of the spelling.
It is off shored. It is in limited supply. It is NOT renewable. It is not green. It's carbon footprint is hidden in 3rd world countries. The tax base is moved out of the USA's economy.
moot
/moÍžot/
adjective
adjective: moot
1.
subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty.
"whether they had been successful or not was a moot point"
2.
having little or no practical relevance, typically because the subject is too uncertain to allow a decision.
"the whole matter is becoming increasingly moot"
I am glad spelling was your sole take away from the post.
Great attention to irrelevant details.
I find most of your posts either irrelevant or poorly researched so the spelling is really the only part that would hold someone's interest.
You are right in that I don't acquire my research data from Chris Cuomo, Don Lemon and The View.
I search out more reputable sources of information that consistently appear to upset lefties when they realize they have been lied to or just get upset and refuse because they are in denial.
Again, everything was accurate and omitted by fredtr's posts praising green energy scams.
BONUS points post of the day!!!!!!
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
I can see what you mean but not necessarily FULLY agree.
Tax breaks given TO consumers who purchase some things DOES filter back to the manufacturer of whatever in question. It is NOT a 'MOOT' point.
Too much is never enough
I periodically get these taxpayer funded "green energy incentives" to replace various appliances, windows, insulation, etc., but there is always a catch.
These offers require buying from and paying "approved installers" to do the work which shows the system is NOT about energy conservation, but kickbacks to special privileged interests. The taxpayers are bilked and the money goes to the chosen few, not back to the taxpayers as it should.
I am totally capable of installing insulation, windows, appliances, etc. and cutting out the middlemen kickback recipients.
Some of the "energy efficient" appliances are truly NOT "energy efficient". They are "energy displacement designs" (read: 3 Card Monty) to reach energy compliance standards for the specific device, but not the system as a whole.
I installed a new "energy efficient/displacement" dishwasher only to discover it no longer heats water like the old workhorse did. It displaced the heating functionality onto the water heater (like hiding carbon footprints overseas, energy consumption is still there, just hidden under the 3-Card-Monty). If the water in the pipes isn't immediately hot, it locks up in a "cold water" error mode requiring a $100 service call to punch in the unpublished magic reset codes. It also means running the hot water line before starting the dishwasher to clear out 100 feet of pipe from the water heater and wasting that 100 foot of water - or - installing a hot water circulating pump and wasting electricity to keep the hot water line charged.
The "energy efficiency" rating is a misnomer.
...of high fuel prices.Much of the US is inaccessible without a vehicle--regardless of fuel-efficiency. Public transportation sucks (or doesn't exist), and we supposedly want people to go to work and school--right?. Most people don't just go out "joy-riding" to burn fuel.
Pretty much everything you need/want/buy has to be transported--either to your local stores, or via home-delivery. Transportation costs are ALWAYS immediately passed-on to the consumer. Even if you've never owned a vehicle, and walk to the corner store, the cost of EVERYTHING on the shelf will go UP.
This also "targets" low and middle-income households the most. These are the folks that can't afford a new(er), more fuel-efficient vehicle (or EV), and will be hit the hardest by across-the-board price-hikes on even the most basic of necessities. And it's a "double-whammy"--you spend more to drive to and from work, end-up with less money, and then have to pay more for everything with what's left? Ghost doesn't mind, but he DOES drive his car nearly every day to go ride his bikes?--and it's not a new Prius or Tesla. Just wasted fuel for personal pleasure.
Meanwhile, my local food-bank has already seen a 29% increase in their costs to provide for those in-need over the holidays. Enjoy your $10/gal gas prices--AND your $20-trip to the local store for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread.
EDIT/ADDITION--don't forget that the folks that donate to these charities (like the food-banks) won't have the money to continue to support them, since they can't afford their own commutes/groceries.
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
Edits: 11/25/21
nt
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Electric vehicles is part of the solution. The rest of the solution is better mass transit, including effective regional trains. Initially these will have to be subsidized (gasoline taxes is a fitting source). As systems grow out and become convenient, ridership will increase and the need for subsidies will decrease and hopefully end.
I lived in Europe, which has close to continent-wide great mass transit, so I've seen it in action. Never wanted a car. Those few times I needed a car it was cheaper to take a taxi than buy and maintain a car.
I live in Omaha, which has crappy mass transit. I'd love to be able to take a bus to work, but can't.
I worked in England, mass T was much more accessible. Here in NJ the most densely populated state it's a haul to work, mass transit sucks if it even exists. Taxing people at the pump would work only if the $ went into a 'lockbox' and we all know how that turns out. Somewhere out there is a much better answer.
I live directly under flight paths into Newark airport. There are plenty of helicopters and private planes that fly overhead every day into the private airports further out and out to Philly. Tax them, they can afford it.
and replace with what...electric cars that you have to pay the electric bill for? And if you recharge batts at work how much do they cut salary? Somebody has to pay. If you work with 100 people how do they manage 100 charging stations? Fast charging cuts battery life, and depending on miles to work and time of the year you might need charging everyday. Imagine a drive in the northeast in December when you have to use your heater, defroster, wipers, and headlights. And forbid the summer drive with windows open to cool things off when it's 90f and you're sweating because the temp in the car was 120f parked all day. AC needs power. So you put a charging station at home that sucks up power from the sun you still have to pay for the station and if it's cloudy all week you're screwed.
Yes we need 100mpg cars, even 200. Present motorcycle tech. Only nutjobs ride a bike in winter every day. Face it, right now and in the foreseeable we don't have the tech to make this work and affordable. The tales of 200mpg carburator patents bought up by Big Oil will have to be revisited in courts and when they do, maybe they can see if there are patents on Ecars that they bought up also.
None of this will be easy or solved in any reasonable amount of time and gobs more costly than grossly inconvenient.
...the US market is largely not interested in fuel-efficiency--not even with the advent of widely-available EVs.
All of this "tech" isn't being utilized to improve fuel-mileage--we're using it to squeeze 300+hp out of 2.0L turbo'd 4-bangers. Could we have used that same tech to produce a car with 100-120 hp, AND gotten 100+mpg?--I'm confident that we could. Would it sell?--NOPE.
I have a Tesla Model S with a 110 Kwh battery and a little over 400 miles of range. Would it go farther with a smaller battery if it didn't pull sub-5 second 0-60 times? I'm sure it would, but no one is pushing for that. The new Porsche EVs do even worse. Same/similar battery-capacities, and nearly half the range. How energy-efficient is that?
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
200mpg carburetors are just stories with noting behind them.
For starters if it is patented the public has full access to it and it expires after 10-20 years.
The gasoline engine has a firm theoretical limit of thermal efficiency which is a smidgen over 30% and we are practically there with current technology.
Also I wouldn't hold my breath for motorcycle tech since motorbikes are surprisingly bad at economy ie motorbike with 50hp+ at the rear wheel uses more fuel than my 150hp 2.2L Mercedes diesel and only a fraction of the torque.
...that I've posted here before, and everyone chooses to ignore. But that's what happens when you base it on "laws of physics", rather than MSM/marketing.
You are absolutely correct regarding thermal efficiency. The other side is that there is a finite amount (Joules) of energy "stored" in a given quantity (gallons or liters) of fuel. Some combustion engines (especially newer ones) are more effective/efficient at capturing that released energy, and converting it to useable hp/torque at the crankshaft.
BUT--and this is the BIG "BUT"--if you want 400 hp at the crank, it requires a certain amount of fuel to be burned to obtain the required amount of energy. Again, engines vary in efficiency at capturing this combustion energy, but the limitation of energy per unit fuel is essentially a constant. There are other factors, such as vehicle weight, internal/external friction and other drivetrain "losses" that come into play, but the bottom-line is XX amount of energy per unit fuel--simple physics. Space-X rockets aren't launching on pump-gas.
But we're not engineering for better fuel-mileage. We're engineering to squeeze 400+hp out of a 2.0L turbo-4, rather than a 5.7L N/A V-8. But you still require a (very) similar amount of fuel to attain that--remember, there's only so much energy per unit fuel.
Using the "tech" we have now, we COULD be building vehicles that easily exceed 100 mpg. They wouldn't have 400+hp, but they'd easily achieve that mileage goal.
But that's not what sells.
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
Never brought it to the US market. Could have, just never did. No demand, I guess.
That's why we need high gas prices. My old Geo Metro got 45 mpg in the city with no tricks. Not a hybrid, no turbos, no stop-start, didn't even have multi-port injection. It was a perfectly serviceable vehicle. Plenty of room for me, ex-wife, two kids, and groceries. Could have been built better, and I'm sure if Honda built something like that it would have been. But the Metro is still the butt of car jokes.
Americans don't want cars like that because our gasoline is cheaper than bottled water. But a car is an appliance, just a device to get you from one place to another and back again. Decades of marketing have convinced us that the automobile is an indicator of self-worth, which is ridiculous. It doesn't even make sense from a financial point of view because people spend tens of thousands of dollars buying more car than they need.
BTW, we pay more for cheap gas than we think we do. The fossil fuel industry is taxpayer subsidized.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Edits: 11/25/21
and what ever happened to the old Smoky Yunick method of extracting greater power from fuel by vaporizing it before ignition instead of the usual. I remember that from pop mechanics 50 years ago, they buried it. FI breaks up the liquid into smaller particles but that is still not enough.
If there weren't any lobbyists blocking legislation there would or will be taxes rated for fuel consumption/vehicle. Trucks have road use taxes.
A lot of people are not going to like the prospect of driving a tiny car, they are addicted to safety especially when they see a couple crumpled up midsize at the site of an accident because ONE driver wasn't paying attention. He was male and argueing with his wife and the driver assist wasn't good enough to catch it.
BTW, have a nice one today at least
...hasn't been raised since the 1990's.
It's been shown by the public's behavior that the only way to get people to buy small fuel efficient cars is via high gasoline prices. Americans aren't unique. Europeans embrace small cars because gas is a lot more expensive.
Doesn't have to be $15/gallon, $7 would probably do it. And I'll bet that if the Federal government ended all oil subsidies, that's probably what the true price of gasoline would be anyway.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
You could try to convince everybody in North America to stop buying pick ups and SUVs that they don't really need. Smaller vehicles use less gas regardless of whether you have a truck with fake "Econo Boost" or not.
Trades people, farmers and the occasional trailer puller are the only ones that actually need a truck.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: