Cost of petrol / Gasoline



Chavez

New Member
Jul 4, 2007
833
4
0
49
Originally Posted by Nukuhiva .

It is certainly much more difficult to lead a car-free lifestyle in North America than it is, for example, in Europe - distances are easily double or triple, public transport systems are thin and sporadic if they exist at all, the size of a lot packaging isn't very bike- or hand-friendly, etc. etc. - so comparing gas prices between continents is kind of pointless.

Thinking about this, I really have come to the conclusion that the problem with public transport in the US is less about people being unwilling to use it, and more about the scale of the cities - you are exactly right, our cities are too diffuse.

Look at US cities were public transit really works - Chicago, NY, Boston....and what's going on is that they are compact, with people stacked one on top of the other, so that when the city makes the capital investment in public transit, it is easy and convenient for significant #s of people.

Whereas once you get out of the "old" cities (basically, I'm thinking the Northeast), the people/sq mi numbers tend to drop, and you also have tightly zoned areas so that you DON'T have stores, restaurants, etc within easy walking distance....ergo, mass transit doesn't work, and neither does walking.

Look at European cities - mixed use all over the place, compact, and NOT generally designed with the automobile in mind. Public transit/cycling work better there.
 

jpr95

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
870
58
0
Right on, Chavez, except for one thing. Even in the cities where public transportation "works", it is HEAVILY subsidized by the taxpayer. I'd be really surprised if any PT system in the U.S. turns anything remotely resembling a profit.

Not to stray too far off the topic, but the point was raised that oil, in standardized dollars hasn't really increased in price over the last 40 years or so. Well, part of that is that we have a private central bank in the U.S. (the Federal Reserve), which has never been publicly audited, is not controlled by the government (Chairman Bernanke, you say? Presidential-appointed figure-head and puppet to the private Board), is essentially a monopoly, and prints money as it sees fit--which devalues any cash or dollar-based holdings you may have. In other words, when they print money, they are stealing from your net worth. Why is this relevant? Because as your net worth goes down, so goes your ability to buy energy, including oil. End the Fed. Revive the Gold Standard.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Keep in mind that the largest coal and fuel oil fired power stations in the world are under 6000MW and that the highest output stations are dams - there's that pesky renewable energy again...
Any more "truths" you wish to bestow upon us, Bucko or are you on a mission to be more dense than heavy residuums? (an oil refining joke)

You apparently haven't ever repaired those generators.... or you would have a better idea of how off your numbers are. Sorry... I have no desire to desecrate any religion... I respect all peoples religions even environmentalist.
 

AlanG

Active Member
Dec 26, 2010
333
36
0
On the other hand inflation allowed one to get a mortgage on a home and pay it back with much less valuable dollars over time.
 

jpr95

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
870
58
0
Originally Posted by AlanG .

On the other hand inflation allowed one to get a mortgage on a home and pay it back with much less valuable dollars over time.

Ahh, yes. The interest/inflation game. Think Vegas--and you're not the House.
 

AlanG

Active Member
Dec 26, 2010
333
36
0
Originally Posted by jpr95 .

Right on, Chavez, except for one thing. Even in the cities where public transportation "works", it is HEAVILY subsidized by the taxpayer. I'd be really surprised if any PT system in the U.S. turns anything remotely resembling a profit.
The idea is not to make a profit but to get people to work, stores, and other places efficiently and stimulate the economy. Roads are also heavily subsidized by tax payers. The interstate highway system was built partially on the idea of national defense to be able to move troops and equipment around easily. Land was once given to railroads. Airports are paid for by governments. Rivers are dredged and canals were built by the Army Corps of Engineers. As for energy, the Tennessee Valley Authority is a government project as is the Hoover Dam. Atomic power generation came out of government research in the Manhattan project. Some of these might pay for themselves and some might not. Nobody seems against government funding going for these things.

It is a complex society and improving transportation is very important. You can't fit more traffic into a city such as Washington DC so what are you going to do if you don't have a subway system?
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by AlanG .

The idea is not to make a profit but to get people to work, stores, and other places efficiently and stimulate the economy.
It's an interesting idea... that an economy can be "stimulated" by the mere exchange of goods and services. That would mean: If you mowed my lawn in exchange for my wife watching your kids (a true exchange of services) that act would "improve the economy". Yet... I can't see how that would happen. I don't think it would be helpful if we actually passed dollars back and forth for those services ether. If that would work... you and I could just do each others chores... while paying each other for the tasks. Until we both became so rich neither of us would need to work at all.

The ONLY way to stimulate an economy is by production. When fishermen learned to used boats and nets instead of spears and fishing poles.... production increased and life's [and economies] improved. There was more fish to eat and it became more affordable. The same things happened when coal was discovered, steam engines invented, and so on.

People can't spend [shop, or buy] themselves rich. Wealth is the result of production.
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
428
83
Dave Cutter said:
You apparently haven't ever repaired those generators.... or you would have a better idea of how off your numbers are. Sorry... I have no desire to desecrate any religion... I respect all peoples religions even environmentalist.
Here's the list from the EIA for the US: http://www.eia.gov/neic/rankings/plantsbycapacity.htm The only facility in the US over 6,000MW is a dam. The largest fossil fuel plant is Florida Power and Lights' Martin County Power Plant at ~3,700MW. For some reason I'm more apt to take data from the US Energy Information Administration that anything that you'd rattle off the top of your head. If you want to prove me wrong, provide data of plant output. In god we trust, all others must bring data.
 

AlanG

Active Member
Dec 26, 2010
333
36
0
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .


It's an interesting idea... that an economy can be "stimulated" by the mere exchange of goods and services. That would mean: If you mowed my lawn in exchange for my wife watching your kids (a true exchange of services) that act would "improve the economy". Yet... I can't see how that would happen. I don't think it would be helpful if we actually passed dollars back and forth for those services ether. If that would work... you and I could just do each others chores... while paying each other for the tasks. Until we both became so rich neither of us would need to work at all.

The ONLY way to stimulate an economy is by production. When fishermen learned to used boats and nets instead of spears and fishing poles.... production increased and life's [and economies] improved. There was more fish to eat and it became more affordable. The same things happened when coal was discovered, steam engines invented, and so on.

People can't spend [shop, or buy] themselves rich. Wealth is the result of production.
You seem to be digressing into uncharted territory...

I'm specifically talking about getting people to work efficiently at a price they can afford... especially if they don't have much money and supply services that we need. Sometimes costs need to be spread out across society in order for this to work. When you supply efficient transportation via mass transit, buses, or new roads and bridges you save travel time for many and thus you save money. This is stimulative to the economy and is a reason why we form governments and have them undertake public works. I have no idea why you can't understand this as it is pretty fundamental. But of course there are times when the cost/benefit may not be worthwhile. See what happens to Alaska's economy if they decide it is not worth it to clear snow from the roads in the winter.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by swampy1970 .


Here's the list from the EIA for the US: http://www.eia.gov/neic/rankings/plantsbycapacity.htm
For some reason I'm more apt to take data from the US Energy Information Administration that anything that you'd rattle off the top of your head. If you want to prove me wrong, provide data of plant output.
Yes.... we are all familiar with google search results. And I do trust you are much older than the "here's the facts... 14 year old" that normally presents that as actual usable data. You instead mix "purposed capacity" with "actual production"... drop all solar panel production from the data... mix-up a couple Kilowatts with Megawatts. No math... but a great display of the way to use google to argue a point on an Internet forum. I really enjoyed your bit of humor about China's windmill production figures. When were you last in China?

Your a fine example of the environmentally faithful. I truely do, respect your religion and your faith although I don't share it with you. I have no evangelical desires [myself] and no desire to "prove you wrong" or convert you to any other faith. I apologize for failing to realize [earlier] that this wasn't about real figures... this is an argument about religion.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by AlanG .

You seem to be digressing into uncharted territory...

I'm specifically talking about getting people to work efficiently at a price they can afford......... When you supply efficient transportation via mass transit, buses, or new roads and bridges you save travel time for many and thus you save money. This is stimulative to the economy and is a reason why we form governments and have them undertake public works.
Yeah... and most adults seem to be able to get themselves to work without busybody's deciding how they will get there. You're right however.... that all governments [sooner or later] do become so controlling and restrictive that they are tyrannical and must be dissolved. However the disorder and chaos involved in the dissolving those government is generally something most wish to avoid.

Few people possess the creative abilities, imagination, and drive that changes the culture for the better. Yet each and everyone of us possess the desire to be a Bill Gates, Henry Ford, or Thomas Edison. I understand your desire to "make a difference" though the power and control of Government... but I don't share it.

So... you mow my lawn this weekend... my wife watches your kids next Tuesday... we pay each other fifty bucks... and we repeat such processes till we both become rich? You know "stimulated" rich! It's got to work right?
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
428
83
Dave Cutter said:
Yes.... we are all familiar with google search results. And I do trust you are much older than the "here's the facts... 14 year old" that normally presents that as actual usable data. You instead mix "purposed capacity" with "actual production"... drop all solar panel production from the data... mix-up a couple Kilowatts with Megawatts. No math... but a great display of the way to use google to argue a point on an Internet forum. I really enjoyed your bit of humor about China's windmill production figures. When were you last in China? Your a fine example of the environmentally faithful. I truely do, respect your religion and your faith although I don't share it with you. I have no evangelical desires [myself] and no desire to "prove you wrong" or convert you to any other faith. I apologize for failing to realize [earlier] that this wasn't about real figures... this is an argument about religion.   
My reason for quoting production in China was in response to your claims that wind/solar production from the entire world wouldn't equal that for one nuclear power station when in fact that one Chinese wind farm when complete will rival the output of the Three Gorges dam - ie bigger than the top three US non-hydroelectric facilities combined. I'm an environmentalist? How do you figure that one out? That I'm not a closed minded fool and open to the use of new technologies doesn't make me an environmentalist. I'm respectful of the need to protect the environment but you won't see me walking down the street with a big sign or removing the 502ci big block from the muscle car sitting in my garage... Religion? LOL. I work for an energy company. Some might call it an oil company but that moniker is a little limiting to all the services and products offered and technologies provides.
 

AlanG

Active Member
Dec 26, 2010
333
36
0
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .


Yeah... and most adults seem to be able to get themselves to work without busybody's deciding how they will get there.
On roads they build themselves of course.
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by swampy1970 .

... one Chinese wind farm when complete will rival the output of the Three Gorges dam - ie bigger than the top three US non-hydroelectric facilities combined.
I'm an environmentalist? How do you figure that one out? That I'm not a closed minded fool and open to the use of new technologies
So... you were in China recently?

New technologies? Wind? Actually even bronze-age man harnessed the energy of wind. I owned my electric generating windmill... likely before you were born. Windmills pre-date written history so no one really knows when people first started using your "NEW" technology. Yeah... you sound/write just exactly like a faithful environmentalist.

If you think this stuff is a great idea... why not stick you own hand in your own pocket and buy some of it! I did... and I learned a LOT. Ranting on a forum won't change a darn thing. Spend some of your OWN MONEY. Solar panels and windmills are fine in some cases. A real energy replacement for a real civilization.... that's a joke.
 

AlanG

Active Member
Dec 26, 2010
333
36
0
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .


So... you were in China recently?

New technologies? Wind? Actually even bronze-age man harnessed the energy of wind. I owned my electric generating windmill... likely before you were born. Windmills pre-date written history so no one really knows when people first started using your "NEW" technology. Yeah... you sound/write just exactly like a faithful environmentalist.

If you think this stuff is a great idea... why not stick you own hand in your own pocket and buy some of it! I did... and I learned a LOT. Ranting on a forum won't change a darn thing. Spend some of your OWN MONEY. Solar panels and windmills are fine in some cases. A real energy replacement for a real civilization.... that's a joke.
It seems to me that the concept of engaging in a dialog is not something that works for you. Bye.
 

Chavez

New Member
Jul 4, 2007
833
4
0
49
Originally Posted by jpr95 .

Right on, Chavez, except for one thing. Even in the cities where public transportation "works", it is HEAVILY subsidized by the taxpayer. I'd be really surprised if any PT system in the U.S. turns anything remotely resembling a profit.

Well, DUH, it's subsidized by the taxpayer - hence the "public" descriptor before "transportation"; secondly, with what the US has spent on roads (construction AND maintenance), bailing out car companies, using our military to safeguard cheap oil, etc, I'd say that the automobile is pretty heavily subsidized as well.


I've been told that reviving the Gold Standard won't work, though I'm kinda unclear exactly on why (may have something to do with liberal arts degree vs econ degree).
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
428
83
Dave Cutter said:
So... you were in China recently? New technologies? Wind? Actually even bronze-age man harnessed the energy of wind. I owned my electric generating windmill... likely before you were born. Windmills pre-date written history so no one really knows when people first started using your "NEW" technology. Yeah... you sound/write just exactly like a faithful environmentalist. If you think this stuff is a great idea... why not stick you own hand in your own pocket and buy some of it! I did... and I learned a LOT. Ranting on a forum won't change a darn thing. Spend some of your OWN MONEY. Solar panels and windmills are fine in some cases. A real energy replacement for a real civilization.... that's a joke.
Ive been to India and pretty much all the countries in Europe but not China. Right now that wind farm has a higher output than all but the highest output plant in the US. The Chinese are good at getting stuff done - most of the engineers said that Three Gorges dam, as designed, was impossible. Remember, you're the one that brought up the comment of power on a global scale. Just because you have no retort all you seem to do is run around the fact that your statements about current wind technology and output were completely incorrect. You owned a wind generator before I was born - so that was back in the 60's, right? I do stick my hand in my pocket - well, the government does it for me - it's called taxes. ;) If you learned a lot then how come your rants are full of **** and written as conherently as the rant the "zombie dude" that chewed off the homeless guys face off the other week. Maybe you need to lay off the bath salts ;)
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
Originally Posted by swampy1970 .
If you learned a lot then how come your rants are full of **** and written as conherently as the rant the "zombie dude" that chewed off the homeless guys face off the other week. Maybe you need to lay off the bath salts /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif
Wow.... you degraded to that.... huh. Sorry if I somehow hurt your feelings. You seem really [OVERLY] emotionally invested in the concept. But... apparently not actually [money] invested. Best of luck with your "ideas".
 

Dave Cutter

Well-Known Member
Jan 15, 2012
603
54
0
It seems that forums are packed full of "tax payers" that want to invest countless dollars in both taxes and devalued savings [dollars]. Yet... in my rich and full "real life" I never meet such individuals. All the tax payers I know realize how foolishly throwing money away is unaffordable to everyone. The only people I've ever meet [in real life] that want to double-down with tax spending are people who don't actually pay taxes. Or those who believe they can profit from the wastefulness.

Of course... I guess everyone [likes to] think of themselves as tax payers. Since they pay taxes on their cigarettes, beer, gasoline, and sales tax in most states. But [real] tax payers that lay out thousands and thousands [10's of 1000's] every year, of real hard earned [sweat, blood, and long hours over decades] cash money.... really hate to just **** away that wealth.

I've never found it easy to earn money! So forgive me for not wanting to gamble it away for half-baked pie-in-the-sky [old worn out] ideas. If you really think there is profit in your ideas... invest in your ideas and dreams. Even if you lose every cent you have... you'll still be better off than just being an Internet name-calling mooch... wanting to spend the hard earned cash of others. And... maybe you'll be smart and right and I will surely look foolish then.. won't I? You will make millions with solar panels on your roof and a windmill in the back yard. And I will be the foolish old guy that didn't invest in "NEW technologies".

Yeah.... that's the ticket! Use that earned income tax credit to make investment millions. That will show me... and everyone else!
 

swampy1970

Well-Known Member
Feb 3, 2008
10,098
428
83
Originally Posted by Dave Cutter .


Wow.... you degraded to that.... huh. Sorry if I somehow hurt your feelings. You seem really [OVERLY] emotionally invested in the concept. But... apparently not actually [money] invested. Best of luck with your "ideas".
Just playing with ya bud.

As AlanG pointed out earlier, you seem to have missed the concept of a forum. As I pointed out your facts seem non-existant.

I personally don't think that producing energy at all costs to the environment is the way to go. Solar isn't yet ready for prime time on a large scale but if we don't invest in it, it never will be. Wind and hydro electricity is. ;)