No President, American or Otherwise, Controls the Price of Petroleum

[autigeremt 6,684]

I know it's in another topic but for clarity sake here's a pretty good breakdown of the oil price/fuel price issues we are seeing. I don't want to give up my boat pulling truck for a high priced, mileage restricted electric alternative just yet but there's some smarts in this article. 

No President - American or Otherwise - Controls the Price of Petroleum (substack.com)

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

3 hours ago, autigeremt said:

I know it's in another topic but for clarity sake here's a pretty good breakdown of the oil price/fuel price issues we are seeing. I don't want to give up my boat pulling truck for a high priced, mileage restricted electric alternative just yet but there's some smarts in this article. 

No President - American or Otherwise - Controls the Price of Petroleum (substack.com)

 

 

It is almost like someone took some of my posts in that thread and ran with them. LOL

 

The ICE will get its second wind soon. Once sustainable fuels for aviation really gain traction it will trickle down to gasoline and other fuels. In fact Porsche is already building a facility to produce it for Formula Racing. Electric vehicles aren't going to be sustainable long term, and in fact I bet will become the next environmental issue once we have all these lithium batteries piling up everywhere. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

21 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

It is almost like someone took some of my posts in that thread and ran with them. LOL

 

The ICE will get its second wind soon. Once sustainable fuels for aviation really gain traction it will trickle down to gasoline and other fuels. In fact Porsche is already building a facility to produce it for Formula Racing. Electric vehicles aren't going to be sustainable long term, and in fact I bet will become the next environmental issue once we have all these lithium batteries piling up everywhere. 

I really fear that you are correct.  As long as capital has so much control, we will drift from one crisis to another. 

However, and perhaps foolishly, I am hopeful that AI might break us out of our biased, ideological thinking. 

[autigeremt 6,684]

27 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

It is almost like someone took some of my posts in that thread and ran with them. LOL

 

The ICE will get its second wind soon. Once sustainable fuels for aviation really gain traction it will trickle down to gasoline and other fuels. In fact Porsche is already building a facility to produce it for Formula Racing. Electric vehicles aren't going to be sustainable long term, and in fact I bet will become the next environmental issue once we have all these lithium batteries piling up everywhere. 

There’s definitely a dark side to alternative vehicles and “renewable” energy. 

[AU9377 5,035]

One thing is certain, Americans never proactively pursue answers to problems.  We have historically responded well, with a lot of ingenuity, when the pain becomes to much to shoulder.  We all know that we can't rely on fossil fuels to power our transportation needs forever.  Even if it is feasible for our lifetimes, it isn't looking a few generations down the road.

We desperately need better, and more convenient, mass transit choices.  There was a better network of rail transportation in 1940 than there is today.  Personally, I love being in the U.K. and Italy and not having to always worry about having a car.  I realize this country is much larger and I'm not suggesting that we don't need them here, we do.  However, there has to be a place in the middle that would result in everyone's lives getting better.

[autigeremt 6,684]

10 hours ago, AU9377 said:

One thing is certain, Americans never proactively pursue answers to problems.  We have historically responded well, with a lot of ingenuity, when the pain becomes to much to shoulder.  We all know that we can't rely on fossil fuels to power our transportation needs forever.  Even if it is feasible for our lifetimes, it isn't looking a few generations down the road.

We desperately need better, and more convenient, mass transit choices.  There was a better network of rail transportation in 1940 than there is today.  Personally, I love being in the U.K. and Italy and not having to always worry about having a car.  I realize this country is much larger and I'm not suggesting that we don't need them here, we do.  However, there has to be a place in the middle that would result in everyone's lives getting better.

People in the US like the freedom of movement. Mass transit works well in dense, populated areas like you said but we are culturally different. For some reason this gets overlooked by those who want to "make" people do something different. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

23 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

People in the US like the freedom of movement. Mass transit works well in dense, populated areas like you said but we are culturally different. For some reason this gets overlooked by those who want to "make" people do something different. 

I do not believe this.  I think most would love high speed rail.  The airline industry/lobby would not.  They are powerful.  How many bailouts have they gotten?  Socialism.  Look up, not down.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

I do not believe this.  I think most would love high speed rail.  The airline industry/lobby would not.  They are powerful.  How many bailouts have they gotten?  Socialism.  Look up, not down.

Southwest Airlines (they have the most to lose)  has successfully lobbied to stall the development of the Texas High Speed Rail for many years. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

22 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Southwest Airlines (they have the most to lose)  has successfully lobbied to stall the development of the Texas High Speed Rail for many years. 

We actually had a ballot initiative for high-speed rail here in Florida a little over a decade ago.  It passed overwhelmingly.  Our legislature unfortunately suspended democracy and refused the federal money.  I believe in this case though, it was more about the special interests associated with toll roads.

[autigeremt 6,684]

3 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I do not believe this.  I think most would love high speed rail.  The airline industry/lobby would not.  They are powerful.  How many bailouts have they gotten?  Socialism.  Look up, not down.

I disagree....but I live in the south and we like our ability to move freely and drive. Some in other parts of the country may be more willing to mass transit. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

I disagree....but I live in the south and we like our ability to move freely and drive. Some in other parts of the country may be more willing to mass transit. 

How would high-speed rail restrict your ability to drive or, "move freely"?

[autigeremt 6,684]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

How would high-speed rail restrict your ability to drive or, "move freely"?

It wouldn't restrict....it just wouldn't be used as much as you are thinking and therefore it would be a money pit for the government. My opinion. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

It wouldn't restrict....it just wouldn't be used as much as you are thinking and therefore it would be a money pit for the government. My opinion. 

Like the airline industry?  Do you consider air travel a money pit?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

It wouldn't restrict....it just wouldn't be used as much as you are thinking and therefore it would be a money pit for the government. My opinion. 

High speed rail isn't generally used for in-town transportation like the NY Subway system.  It's more of thing that would be for longer connections between cities, or for larger cities and various suburbs.  In that sense, it's no more restrictive or impinging on Americans' freedom to come and go at will than taking an airplane would be.  It's typically used in situations of trips that last 1 to 4 hours or so.  But because they travel at speeds of around 150 mph, that one hour takes you a lot farther.  So for instance, a trip from Montgomery, AL to Huntsville, AL normally takes about 2 hrs and 45 mins depending on time of day, going mostly I-65 in a car.  A high speed rail line would get you there in about an hour and 15 mins...less than half the time.  And you could read a book, watch a show on your laptop, or take a nap.  You could get from Montgomery to Birmingham in about 35 mins rather than an hour and 20 mins.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

https://news.yahoo.com/bidens-climate-change-agenda-would-reduce-oil-demand-enough-to-replace-russian-imports-study-224104256.html

Build Back Better is an investment we cannot afford,,, not to make.

[homersapien 11,440]

23 hours ago, autigeremt said:

There’s definitely a dark side to alternative vehicles and “renewable” energy. 

Of course.  There's two sides (pros and cons) to everything. 

The point is to consider that when comparing alternatives.

Edited March 9, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

It wouldn't restrict....it just wouldn't be used as much as you are thinking and therefore it would be a money pit for the government. My opinion. 

Your opinion is just wrong.

My preferred method for visiting my family in Birmingham, Alabama is Amtrak's Southern Crescent. It takes a couple of hours longer than driving, but you can sleep or read during the trip and don't have to worry so much about car crashes (especially while driving through Atlanta).

And in case you haven't noticed, traffic is only getting worse - including interstate traffic.

Edited March 9, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

4 hours ago, autigeremt said:

People in the US like the freedom of movement. Mass transit works well in dense, populated areas like you said but we are culturally different. For some reason this gets overlooked by those who want to "make" people do something different. 

There's that paranoia again.

This country is governed by moneyed interests.  That includes the Airline and auto industries.  There's much less money to be made in passenger rail, even though we'd be better off for it as a nation.

But if by "culturally different" you mean stupid and short-sighted, you may be on to something. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,440]

48 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I disagree....but I live in the south and we like our ability to move freely and drive. Some in other parts of the country may be more willing to mass transit. 

An effective passenger rail system would only make it easier for those who choose to drive.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

Numerous high speed rail projects around the country have failed for cost overruns, extended construction time, and lower than projected ridership.  EMT is right, seems like they never get the projected numbers of customers to make any money.  You end up eminent domaining a bunch of land to built track,  high speed needs upgraded track to run at 150 mph, and you abandon the enviro nerds who don't want a dirty RR track running across the pristine landscape of Leeds.  MAGLEV is nice but expensive. Might be too hilly in AL for that kind of run, and you need transportation on both ends also. Big parking lots for more customers.

[AU9377 5,035]

4 hours ago, autigeremt said:

People in the US like the freedom of movement. Mass transit works well in dense, populated areas like you said but we are culturally different. For some reason this gets overlooked by those who want to "make" people do something different. 

I never suggested making someone do anything.  There is nothing about having the option to take a train from Mobile to Destin or to Gulfport that restricts someone's movement.  We aren't that culturally different than the British.  In fact, what we have in common far far outweighs our differences.  At some point, we have to consider what makes our communities better places to live and consider the importance of that to be at least on par with the importance of making a dollar.  This has nothing to do with freedom or individual liberties.  I can assure anyone that people in Canada, the U.K. and Australia have just as many civil liberties and are just as free as we are here in the U.S.

People make the same type arguments with so many issues.  People don't want zoning, until someone builds a chicken house in their back yard.  They want to throw the book at crime, until their child gets arrested.  If we would step back and look at the bigger picture, we could find solutions to a lot of things.

[AU9377 5,035]

2 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Numerous high speed rail projects around the country have failed for cost overruns, extended construction time, and lower than projected ridership.  EMT is right, seems like they never get the projected numbers of customers to make any money.  You end up eminent domaining a bunch of land to built track,  high speed needs upgraded track to run at 150 mph, and you abandon the enviro nerds who don't want a dirty RR track running across the pristine landscape of Leeds.  MAGLEV is nice but expensive. Might be too hilly in AL for that kind of run, and you need transportation on both ends also. Big parking lots for more customers.

We can't look at rail as a profit making enterprise.  At best, we should hope that it breaks even.  We need to consider the fact that, at some point, we will have no choice but to develop additional forms of transportation.  We should be anticipating that, rather than simply reacting and pretending to be shocked 50 years from now.  There have been tens of thousands of existing miles of rail abandoned over the past 50 years.  That would have been a good place to start.  Our problem is that we allow greed and special interests to control our domestic policy to such an extreme that we often don't make good decisions.  It is difficult for a Senator or Congressman to make an unbiased opinion when their PACs are being stuffed with money from oil companies etc.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

A high speed rail between DFW and Houston would be profitable, I do know that. LOL

[wdefromtx 3,159]

This is what we need to be investing in:

DOE Explains...Solar Fuels | Department of Energy

 

Many EU companies and governments are investing in the technology to get this where it is economically feasible. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

26 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Numerous high speed rail projects around the country have failed for cost overruns, extended construction time, and lower than projected ridership.  EMT is right, seems like they never get the projected numbers of customers to make any money.  You end up eminent domaining a bunch of land to built track,  high speed needs upgraded track to run at 150 mph, and you abandon the enviro nerds who don't want a dirty RR track running across the pristine landscape of Leeds.  MAGLEV is nice but expensive. Might be too hilly in AL for that kind of run, and you need transportation on both ends also. Big parking lots for more customers.

Much of this is true.  The projects, for the most part, have failed in the developmental stage.  The initial expectations are too often unrealistic.  However, that doesn't mean that done correctly it would not be of value.  Hills are irrelevant.  The Japanese have already solved that problem.