The Biden Administration

156,126 Views | 3279 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Oldsouljer
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?
The dissenting opinion has been sidelined!!!!!
WarrenPeace
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?



Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.
TheStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The solution is definitely not serviceable.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I say we build a bunch of coal facilities to power the grids that will be needed for all these new electric stations...

That's exactly what China is doing for their consumption needs! Coal... it's the new future...
The dissenting opinion has been sidelined!!!!!
PackFansXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Electric cars make more sense if we stop listening to the Sierra Club anti-nuke activists. Nuclear power is better than relying on coal. We certainly can't survive on wind and solar.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PackFansXL said:

Electric cars make more sense if we stop listening to the Sierra Club anti-nuke activists. Nuclear power is better than relying on coal. We certainly can't survive on wind and solar.
Nuclear is supposed to be the most efficient power available.
The dissenting opinion has been sidelined!!!!!
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.

What source of energy is being cut off, and how?

Most new-car buyers aren't typically considering a $36k gas car or a $54k electric. There are a bunch of sub-$40k EV's on the market now.

They're considering a new car, have $30k-$40k to spend on one, and are comparing gas and electric vehicles in that price range knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car.
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.

What source of energy is being cut off, and how?

Most new-car buyers aren't typically considering a $36k gas car or a $54k electric. There are a bunch of sub-$40k EV's on the market now.

They're considering a new car, have $30k-$40k to spend on one, and are comparing gas and electric vehicles in that price range knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car.


Lol. What a bubble you live in.
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.

What source of energy is being cut off, and how?

Most new-car buyers aren't typically considering a $36k gas car or a $54k electric. There are a bunch of sub-$40k EV's on the market now.

They're considering a new car, have $30k-$40k to spend on one, and are comparing gas and electric vehicles in that price range knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car.


I knew I shouldn't have bothered. Stop being wilfully ignorant. You know the Keystone pipeline was shut down. Also, the Michigan pipeline is being considered for shutdown. As well, all permits for exploration of new oil and natural gas sources are shut down.

My numbers were based on average, but I guess you know what the public is doing. The math is still not there based on the numbers. Not to mention the limited life of the batteries doesn't work for many people that rely on their cars. Also, by allowing China to corner the market on batteries, do you think the prices for these are going to come down or go up? What about all the parts to fix these cars? Again China control.

We had control of our destiny with oil and gas, and potential for rare earth materials. But, we've handed that off to the rest of the world. So, how does that set up the US for coming years? Not looking good!
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
packgrad said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.

What source of energy is being cut off, and how?

Most new-car buyers aren't typically considering a $36k gas car or a $54k electric. There are a bunch of sub-$40k EV's on the market now.

They're considering a new car, have $30k-$40k to spend on one, and are comparing gas and electric vehicles in that price range knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car.


Lol. What a bubble you live in.


Ignorance is bliss!
packgrad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

packgrad said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.

What source of energy is being cut off, and how?

Most new-car buyers aren't typically considering a $36k gas car or a $54k electric. There are a bunch of sub-$40k EV's on the market now.

They're considering a new car, have $30k-$40k to spend on one, and are comparing gas and electric vehicles in that price range knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car.


Lol. What a bubble you live in.


Ignorance is bliss!
No doubt. Most people considering a 35-40k car "knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car", will still buy a gas model. As in 97% of new car sales in NA in first half of 2021. Now, as long as leftists governments continue to mandate that gas vehicles no longer be produced, that number will of course increase. But it is not because most new car buyers are choosing electric over gas. The numbers CLEARLY show that is not the case.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.

What source of energy is being cut off, and how?

Most new-car buyers aren't typically considering a $36k gas car or a $54k electric. There are a bunch of sub-$40k EV's on the market now.

They're considering a new car, have $30k-$40k to spend on one, and are comparing gas and electric vehicles in that price range knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car.


I knew I shouldn't have bothered. Stop being wilfully ignorant. You know the Keystone pipeline was shut down. Also, the Michigan pipeline is being considered for shutdown. As well, all permits for exploration of new oil and natural gas sources are shut down.

My numbers were based on average, but I guess you know what the public is doing. The math is still not there based on the numbers. Not to mention the limited life of the batteries doesn't work for many people that rely on their cars. Also, by allowing China to corner the market on batteries, do you think the prices for these are going to come down or go up? What about all the parts to fix these cars? Again China control.

We had control of our destiny with oil and gas, and potential for rare earth materials. But, we've handed that off to the rest of the world. So, how does that set up the US for coming years? Not looking good!

Stop being willfully misleading.

Biden didn't "shut down" the Keystone pipeline. That makes it sound like it was operational. He pulled the Keystone permit for a project that was in development. That move had no effect on existing production.

He didn't stop new exploration either, he put a moratorium on new leasing of federal land for oil exploration and development. And several months later, an inunction was granted that paused that moratorium.

He also didn't shut down "all permits for exploration of new oil and gas." There have been more permits issued by BLM this year than last year.

Irrespective of the moratorium injunction status, there are currently 40 million on- and offshore acres under existing leases that can be explored. And even if the moratorium injunction is eventually lifted, the moratorium only impacts new leases on federal lands, and federal lands only account for 25 percent of our current domestic production.

We have the capacity to produce lots of conventional oil and gas energy for the foreseeable future. The spigot isn't getting cut off suddenly and dramatically.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This guy!

Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.

What source of energy is being cut off, and how?

Most new-car buyers aren't typically considering a $36k gas car or a $54k electric. There are a bunch of sub-$40k EV's on the market now.

They're considering a new car, have $30k-$40k to spend on one, and are comparing gas and electric vehicles in that price range knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car.


I knew I shouldn't have bothered. Stop being wilfully ignorant. You know the Keystone pipeline was shut down. Also, the Michigan pipeline is being considered for shutdown. As well, all permits for exploration of new oil and natural gas sources are shut down.

My numbers were based on average, but I guess you know what the public is doing. The math is still not there based on the numbers. Not to mention the limited life of the batteries doesn't work for many people that rely on their cars. Also, by allowing China to corner the market on batteries, do you think the prices for these are going to come down or go up? What about all the parts to fix these cars? Again China control.

We had control of our destiny with oil and gas, and potential for rare earth materials. But, we've handed that off to the rest of the world. So, how does that set up the US for coming years? Not looking good!

Stop being willfully misleading.

Biden didn't "shut down" the Keystone pipeline. That makes it sound like it was operational. He pulled the Keystone permit for a project that was in development. That move had no effect on existing production.

He didn't stop new exploration either, he put a moratorium on new leasing of federal land for oil exploration and development. And several months later, an inunction was granted that paused that moratorium.

He also didn't shut down "all permits for exploration of new oil and gas." There have been more permits issued by BLM this year than last year.

Irrespective of the moratorium injunction status, there are currently 40 million on- and offshore acres under existing leases that can be explored. And even if the moratorium injunction is eventually lifted, the moratorium only impacts new leases on federal lands, and federal lands only account for 25 percent of our current domestic production.

We have the capacity to produce lots of conventional oil and gas energy for the foreseeable future. The spigot isn't getting cut off suddenly and dramatically.


I didn't say our entire source had been cut off. I gave you an example of a source that was cut off. Whether currently operational or not, it still has an effect on pricing and futures.

If there is so much potential production within the US, why is he begging OPEC to up production and then reaching into our own emergency supply? Squeezing the spigot is only the beginning of what they're trying to do, to ultimately kill it.
caryking
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't really care what kind of car anyone buys. If you like electric, go for it. Now, I do care about the supply chain for goods. Too many parts, of a car, are manufactured in China. Now, add in the battery and we will have a mess on our hands.

Additionally, our Federal government squeezing the market, with incentives, is a bad idea. The people applauding and/or taking advantage of these incentives will be the same people *****ing about the rich paying their fair share. An incentive is an incentive, isn't it?

Where does this all end? China owns all of the rare earth materials now. How much longer is going to take for the US to be subservient to China?
The dissenting opinion has been sidelined!!!!!
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

Steve Videtich said:

Civilized said:

caryking said:

Steve Videtich said:

hokiewolf said:

This guy is really gets it. Instead of coming up with a plan to help with the average $30 extra families are paying for gas every month, just spend $55k on a new electric vehicle! But not a Tesla, because they are not union and you won't get the tax break!




That's great advice coming from the establishment group that are heavily invested in electric car companies and the Bidens who are heavily invested in China's success.


Yea, where are we getting those batteries?

You can question Buttigieg's messaging and Washington's connections to China till the cows come home.

But do you really believe that the transition to EV's is imprudent given the totality of the circumstances?


I'm probably asking for trouble. But, what circumstances are you speaking of?

All the benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles relative to gas vehicles.


That's fairly vague...but my issue with this entire discussion is that they're trying to force the issue by cutting off one source of energy before renewable energy is even really close to manageable and efficient. I agree that we should try and move toward renewables, but the technology hasn't gotten to where it's even close to workable.

If you compare the average cost of buying a new gas car, which is around $36k and an electric car at around $54k, you're comparing a monthly payment of about $549 versus $823. Even at today's gas prices, you're spending only $160-$200 per month. That's still less than paying for an electric car. Also, the electricity has to still be produced somehow.

You just can't force the issue without the solution being serviceable.

What source of energy is being cut off, and how?

Most new-car buyers aren't typically considering a $36k gas car or a $54k electric. There are a bunch of sub-$40k EV's on the market now.

They're considering a new car, have $30k-$40k to spend on one, and are comparing gas and electric vehicles in that price range knowing that they'll pay more for electric but may get a nice tax credit that draws the cost of the EV in line with a relatively comparable gas model and then get to experience much lower maintenance and energy costs over the life of the car.


I knew I shouldn't have bothered. Stop being wilfully ignorant. You know the Keystone pipeline was shut down. Also, the Michigan pipeline is being considered for shutdown. As well, all permits for exploration of new oil and natural gas sources are shut down.

My numbers were based on average, but I guess you know what the public is doing. The math is still not there based on the numbers. Not to mention the limited life of the batteries doesn't work for many people that rely on their cars. Also, by allowing China to corner the market on batteries, do you think the prices for these are going to come down or go up? What about all the parts to fix these cars? Again China control.

We had control of our destiny with oil and gas, and potential for rare earth materials. But, we've handed that off to the rest of the world. So, how does that set up the US for coming years? Not looking good!
Yes, and with the kind of climate change I'm looking at, I.e., a Maunder solar minimum bringing maybe two decades of colder winters, those fossil fuels are going to be sorely needed.
RunsWithWolves26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When are the colder winters coming?
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Supposedly, the cycle started in 2020. For awhile NASA was talking about it, but they keep changing their position as often as the CDC changes theirs, probably for the same reason, it doesn't suit someone's narrative.
Steve Videtich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldsouljer said:

Supposedly, the cycle started in 2020. For awhile NASA was talking about it, but they keep changing their position as often as the CDC changes theirs, probably for the same reason, it doesn't suit someone's narrative.


There also studies that show the planet goes through a cycle roughly every 15,000 years. In this cycle, there is a steady climb in average temperature for about 10,000 to 12,000 years, followed by a sharp drop over 3,000 to 5,000 years. We are currently near the top of that climb, with a steep drop coming within the next 1,000 years.

That's what science says!
WPNfamily
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Steve Videtich said:

Oldsouljer said:

Supposedly, the cycle started in 2020. For awhile NASA was talking about it, but they keep changing their position as often as the CDC changes theirs, probably for the same reason, it doesn't suit someone's narrative.


There also studies that show the planet goes through a cycle roughly every 15,000 years. In this cycle, there is a steady climb in average temperature for about 10,000 to 12,000 years, followed by a sharp drop over 3,000 to 5,000 years. We are currently near the top of that climb, with a steep drop coming within the next 1,000 years.

That's what science says!


I just want State to win a natty in football or basketball before I push up daisies. I can't even fathom the cold front in 1,000 years.
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WPNfamily said:

Steve Videtich said:

Oldsouljer said:

Supposedly, the cycle started in 2020. For awhile NASA was talking about it, but they keep changing their position as often as the CDC changes theirs, probably for the same reason, it doesn't suit someone's narrative.


There also studies that show the planet goes through a cycle roughly every 15,000 years. In this cycle, there is a steady climb in average temperature for about 10,000 to 12,000 years, followed by a sharp drop over 3,000 to 5,000 years. We are currently near the top of that climb, with a steep drop coming within the next 1,000 years.

That's what science says!


I just want State to win a natty in football or basketball before I push up daisies. I can't even fathom the cold front in 1,000 years.
Hey! Because of these cycles, the Sahara will be green again in 3-5 kilo years. I'd say that's worth getting excited about!
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.