Strawfoot
Explorer
Joined 23 years ago
User Profile
User Widgets
All Activity
Re: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
onrecess wrote: Gee, that Onrecess guy predicted (before summer - see page 16) that gas prices would drop to between 1.67 (what it was when bushII took office) to $2.57 JUST BEFORE the election so the dems wouldn't nationalize the oil companies. He is amazing! Sort of like that Eli Stone of political hijinks! (Okay, it is me!) Gee, what a surprise! NOT! Gosh, a party going in that isn't oil company owned and (coincidently, I'm sure) oil prices drop! Amazing! Just as that wise sage had said! And still the same people who said I was crazy will swear it was impossible to predict! Yeah, yet I did it. Be afraid, be very, very afraid! LMAO! I think if we took a vote the majority would still say you are crazy. Gas prices went up and then went up and up and then up again. Like anything else (real estate, the stock market), the bubble was going to burst, at least for a while. Worldwide demand for crude oil is going to double in the coming years. What will the price of unleaded be in one year, two years, five years, ten years? Four bucks a gallon? Five? Eight? Ten, plus it will be rationed by the government? Who knows. Least of all someone who plans to convert a Porsche to run on golf cart batteries. Try checking with all of us who already use golf cart batteries to store solar power on our campers. You never want to run them under 50% charge and if it gets down below freezing, you can lose over 50% of that 50% you started out with. Turn on the a/c, wipers, radio, and headlights, and your range on that $25,000 converted Porsche will drop to 20 miles, maybe less if it is really cold. And where in the world did you read that Democrats want to nationalize the oil industry? By the way, what kind of gas mileage does a '96 Holiday Rambler with a Ford 460 get, wise sage? 6MPG?240Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
Fezziwig wrote: Oil cos. can call the shots because they are an oligopoly, the next thing to a monopoly. So they can do as they please. And just imagine, some people believe that oil cos. will DRILL NOW DRILL HERE if we grant them more oil leases! Imagine that: They'd cut their own throats just to glut the US market and supply more oil at lower prices to USA motorists. Imagine that! Could anything be more hilarious!? It's the fuzzy facts (or is it Fezzy Facts) of your post that is so hilarious. Oil companies call the shots? Really? Oil companies want to drill for oil in the ocean off-shore from the U.S., but they can't. They want to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, but can't. Does that sound like they are calling the shots? Does it sound like Congress is rubber stamping their every wish? I don't suppose the oil companies want to pay $40,000,000,000 in taxes (or whatever the total is) to the U.S. government each year. Why don't they just call the shots and refuse to pay taxes? Does it do the oil companies good or bad to have GM go under, or need a bailout to survive? Does it do the oil companies good or bad to have consumers looking for alternative forms of energy to run their homes and cars? I can just picture their board meetings; "Gentlemen, we need to quit drilling for oil until the American population is driving cars that run on electricity and have their homes heated running on solar and wind energy. Then we can really stick it to them, right? Wait a minute. If we allow fuel to rise to over $4 a gallon, it will be cheaper to operate bio-diesel cars and trucks, electric cars, and fuel cell cars and trucks. Maybe we need to look at this business plan that does little more than lead us to extinction. It's about as bright as the horse and buggy salesmen withholding his horses or buggy's in order to keep people from shopping for automobiles. Imagine that! Hilarious.356Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
Fezziwig wrote: Strawfoot says: "And don't believe for a minute, as Fez is suggesting, that Congress is doing it's best to help us all out." Huh? Where did I suggest that? I think that you're trying to suggest that I suggested that. I don't have any confidence at all in congress. They are in the pay of the lobbyists. You guys keep saying "drill drill drill" without realizing that Americans DO NOT CONTROL drilling. You can chant "drill drill drill" all day long and not one well will be drilled. No oil drilling rigs are owned or commanded by the US government. So telling congress or anyone else in the government to "drill drill" will be FUTILE! Here is exactly what you said; Fezziwig wrote: A sure way to reduce short term gas prices is to release oil from the Strategic Petrol Reserve (SPR), which is 98% full. This can be accomplished either by executive order or congressional action. Congress is trying, but... If you would had finished your sentence, it would have said Congress is trying but the President has failed to make an executive order. In other words, you are saying our Congress is doing what they can, while you are suggesting the President is not. It's just more baloney. There has been lengthy discussions regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Most experts disagree with you, and say it would have little effect. Why do you continue failing to understand what people here are suggesting. They are not saying the Government owns oil rigs. Can you find a post where someone said they do? What they are saying is that Congress can open up ANWR and allow oil companies to come in and drill and extract crude oil. Actually, you know this is what people are suggesting because they have said it. They have said many times they want the Congress to open up ANWR. So you are wasting more of everyones time by suggesting that some here think the Government owns the oil rigs. The Government is, however, essential in opening up areas for exploration and drilling.294Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
qtla9111 wrote: And so what if we drill, drill, drill. Then what? Will the price of oil and fuel go down? I doubt it. People can do what they want. In my case, I want to go solar as soon as possible. Electricity has never gone down in price. I don't care what it costs me short term, in the long term it will pay off. No more doubts and no more promises. I will take care of myself. No, it's not a good point. You are looking at the current situation all wrong. It's not drill, drill drill to get the price of oil to go down. It drill drill drill to buy time and to keep the price from going up too rapidly. People can keep repeating the notion that drilling won't produce results for 10-20 years but they are wrong. First of all, is it 10 years or 20 years? Second, is the notion that the U.S. can do something to take control out of the hands of foreign countries. It's all about the message getting out to our current suppliers. That in itself creates results overnight. Within 24 hours of announcing we are going to start drilling off shore and in Alaska, oil futures would drop, probably well under $100 a barrel. So if someone tells you there will be no results from drilling for 10-20 years, they are wrong. You'll see results in a matter of days. qtla9111 wrote: I don't care what it costs me short term, in the long term it will pay off. You don't care? Really. Say it costs you $50k in the short term. It might take 50 years to pay itself off. Do you care then? Lot's of us dream about living off the grid because we like the idea of not having to rely on others. But in the long run, most of us take the time to do the math, factor in our current age, and then make a more rational decision. Look at people running out to buy a Prius. What did they pay? Probably full sticker price. Did they even understand what a hybrid was or how it worked? Some of these people commute on the highway each day, traveling hundreds of miles. Do they care that they are essentially driving a small gasoline powered car 98% of the time? They could have saved $5,000 and bought a Civic, or better yet, a diesel VW Jetta. How many of those Prius buyers even asked about the life span of their cars battery or how much it costs to replace it? They simply got fired up or fed up and ran out to make an impulse purchase. When their neighbors asked them why they paid so much for their Prius, they replied; I don't care what it costs me short term, in the long term it will pay off. I live in Arizona. There is a group calling itself the Center for Biological Diversity, as well as a couple others with similar names. They are lawyers, mostly. After a large wildfire, there will be a proposal to go into the area and salvage the trees that are damaged. The groups like the Center for Biological Diversity will file papers asking a judge to stop the salvage, because they claim it will damage the environment, the land, the animals, the entire ecosystem. Here's the punch line. They will lose in court and they know it. Yup, they lose almost every time, eventually. But they declare victory every time, because they win even when they lose in court. That's right. They know they don't need to win in court. They only need to stall for time. Those burnt trees can only be salvaged for maybe six months. After that, they are worthless dead timber. So those lawyers are not getting paid to win, but to stall for six months, which turns out to be a victory. I'm not going to tell you which political party is more beholden to lawyers, especially trial lawyers. I would just be taking sides, as well as getting this post deleted. I'm just saying there are many things we wish our elected leaders were doing for us and for our country that they seem to fail to get done. We question them a little and wonder if they are influenced by all the donations from various special interest groups. That could explain why Congress has a 9% approval rating. We seem to agree they are not getting anything done. Perhaps it's time people in the private sector stepped up and come up with solutions that the American people can get behind and push forward, with or without the blessings of our elected officials.294Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
Fezziwig wrote: Nuclear? A solar plant occupying the same acreage produces almost as much electricity as nuclear... Is it possible to call shenanigans on this claim without incurring another landslide of rants? The lucky sunny state of Arizona is about to become home to the world’s largest Solar Plant! Thanks to a just-announced contract between Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the enormous solar plant called Solana will power up to 70,000 homes, and will be the first example in the country of a major utility getting the majority of its energy from solar. The capacity of the power plant has been projected at 280 megawatts. The 1900 acre plant will be completed by 2011 – IF AND ONLY IF Congress renews the clean energy tax credit that’s set to expire at the end of 2008. That's the clean energy bill which would shift about $18 billion in tax breaks from oil companies to renewable energy. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station The facility is on 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts electrical, and typical operating capacity 70%-95% of this. The plant is a major source of power for Phoenix and Southern California, capable of serving about 4 million people. The plant provides about 35% of the electricity generated in Arizona each year. It supplies electricity at a production cost (including fuel, maintenance and operation) of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour[5]. This is cheaper than coal (2.26 cents/kWh) or natural gas (4.54 cents/kWh) in the region at the same time (2002), but more expensive than hydro (0.63 cents/kWh). Assuming a 60-year plant life and 5% long-term cost of capital, the depreciation and capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. In 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents/kWh. By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde hub was 6.33 cents/kWh[6]. Nuclear power generators are very profitable when fossil fuel prices are high. So the Solar Power Plant is 1900 acres has been projected to produce 280 megawatts. The Nuclear Power Plant is 4,000 acres of land and consists of three Combustion Engineering pressurized water reactors, each with an original capacity of 1.27 gigawatts electrical, current (2007) maximum capacity of 1.24 gigawatts, for a total of 3.72 gigawatts. So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Nuclear Power Plant takes up twice the space and produces 13 times more electricity. It serves 4 million people vs. 70,000 homes, if those two can be compared. So exactly how did you conclude the two were equal? Where are your sources. I simply looked at the Nuclear Power Plant here in Arizona and the proposed Solar Power Plant here in Arizona. Are we to conclude all the figures you post here are off by over 1000%? It would go a long way in explaining why you are met with so much skepticism. :)263Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
I just couldn't understand the logic of asking people not to write diatribes against politicians after you (Fezziwig) wrote a diatribe against politicians. Or, for that matter, why the moderator deleted my post for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. So I guess, to be consistent, the mod will need to delete this post as well, which again, won't make any sense. I'll just stand clear of the skunk and let him explain his logic.127Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
TrueLarry wrote: Well, if you are still reading, you pretty much have figured out that I'm not a socialist. A free market economy can and will help us solve the problems. The government just moves the problems around and sends us a bill for the privelege. Happy ranting. I enjoyed what you had to say, Larry. I can't understand how people think I'm a socialist. All I am asking for is another Manhattan Project, only to create energy independence. Did people call it socialism when our government built the bomb that saved countless soldiers lives and ended the war in the pacific? Hardly. It was just government putting the best and brightest together and funding their work until they could come up with a weapon to defeat the Japanese. It would be great if we could do something like that to create large amounts of clean energy that we don't have to buy from other countries. It seems we already have the technology to build everything needed. We just need to get moving.244Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
The consumer will pay for the end product, thus allowing you to produce the product. - Jimbo first of all, business does NOT PAY TAXES -Jimbo Second that for JIMBO!!!! He is right on the mark and put it absolutley perfect.!! - The Weekenders Explain how Jimbo was right on the mark. He states that because the consumer will pay for nuclear power, hyro-electric power, and solar power, this allows "you" to produce those products. Is that what they were teaching in economics class? Who is "you" and where do they get the authority to build dams and nuclear power plants? They just acquire the right-of-way on our rivers? They just dispose of spent nuclear fuel as they wish? They don't have to go through the government? Businesses don't pay taxes? That's right on the mark? Exxon pays half of those large profits back to the government in taxes. Maybe Jimbo can explain to them that they needn't bother paying taxes. Our corporate taxes are about the highest in the world, but don't tell Jimbo. Come om people, we can do better than this. How about some ideas. You know, solutions. I get it; you hate the way our government has failed you in the past. But at the same time you are still getting those prescription drugs paid for and you are still cashing your social security checks, even if you are 80 years old and have taken out twice as much as you ever paid in. You don't hate the government, you hate some of what government does and embrace other things they do. If you are a member of AARP, you are part of a huge political organization that tries to milk the government at every opportunity. You want them paying for all your medical needs and handing the bills to the next generation of taxpayers. Look at those colorful pie charts explaining where our taxes go. It use to be Medicare and Medicaid represented 1-2% of government spending. Soon they will be 30% and they will bankrupt the government. You can complain about our government but you can't do so while milking taxpayers because of a government program you happen to embrace. 1966: Defense: 43.0%; Social Security: 15.0%; Medicare & Medicaid: 1.0%; Net interest: 7.0%; All other spending: 34.0%. 1986: Defense: 28.0%; Social Security: 20.0%; Medicare & Medicaid: 10.0%; Net interest: 14.0%; All other spending: 29.0%. 2006: Defense: 20.0%; Social Security: 21.0%; Medicare & Medicaid: 19.0%; Net interest: 9.0%; All other spending: 32.0%.218Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
macira wrote: Strawfoot. The world has already had a failed example of Governmant directed and controlled industry and development. That was the USSR, even now Comunist China is far from that Marxist-Leninist/Socialist model. We need Legislators that help folks do and develope industries that are honest, and desired by folks willing to trade and buy them. Government direction of business and development is a sure road to perdition. Lets have "Change that works"!! I see a world of difference between the USSR and say, NASA. Now I'm no fan of NASA but the U.S. government decided on a mission for the country. It set a ten year timetable and acquired the funding. Personally I feel it has been mostly a waste of money. We don't need to spend a few hundred billion dollars trying to send a human to Mars, just to prove it won't work. However, that is the spirit I'm trying to get across. A project for our country to quickly move towards energy independence. I'm not saying the government should run everything. But how do you get 100 new dams and 100 new nuclear plants built without the government? Gridlock is the result of people dragging their feet or opposing something and blocking all progress. They can have good reasons. They might not want to pay higher taxes. Sadly, they'll pay $10 a gallon for gasoline in five years, and still only be able to buy a limited amount each month due to rationing, but they won't have the insight to support building hydro-electric dams and nuclear power plants to provide a clean energy source that can't be manipulated by foreign countries. I refuse to accept your notion that building new dams and nuclear power plants makes us like the USSR. I doubt we can do it without involving the U.S. government. We need new energy sources on a huge scale. 100,000 wind turbines, 100 or more nuclear power plants, hydro-electric dams by the dozens, solar panels on every roof, geo-thermal plants, tidal power plants. Now, how does it happen? What are you suggesting? For all of you living in California, why do you suppose they lead the nation in getting home owners and businesses to install solar panels? I think it's simple. They offer the largest tax break. I believe it's around 50% of the cost that gets refunded. Now you might not agree with the government handing out tax breaks for a select group of people, but it works. If my state offered that kind of deal, I'd order solar panels for my roof. I already have two panels on my fiver and love the solar system that allows me to dry camp and still have all the power needed to run my stereo and television. Let's get some ideas from all those who say no to paying a tax to get new energy solutions. Don't tell me what won't work. Don't tell me the government always fails. Tell me how to get new, clean, reliable energy sources in the U.S.202Views0likes0CommentsRe: RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!
I like the direction this topic has moved in. We are doing more than just blaming some group for the problem. But we are still short on ideas. Saying we can't trust the government to oversee or direct a major build-up of alternative energy sources is understandable considering the low approval rating of our congress. But what then is the solution? Who is going to build 100 new hydro-electric dams? Who is going to build 100 new nuclear power plants? The government will have to play a major role. If the majority of Americans refuse to give them the ability to get these type of projects started, we will get deeper into trouble. Ten years from now, when we still have zero new nuclear power plants and zero new hydro-electric dams, who do we blame? The politicians, of course. But they will tell us they got no support for building anything. They'll tell the press that thousands of Jimbo Alaska's wrote them letters saying they refuse to pay for anything other than fire. police and schools for their kids. They expect all that new infrastructure to just appear, as if by magic. Plus, they feel that at their age, they can run out the clock on what is left of traditional energy sources and let their grandkids solve the energy problems after they are dead and gone. Their logic is that " The consumer will pay for the end product, thus allowing you to produce the product. ". So because the consumer wants cheap electricity, someone will simply "produce" it. That's how economics works, right? Listen, Jimbo isn't A whacko environmentalist. He might be causing the same amount of gridlock as them but he is just an old timer who doesn't want to help fund any new energy projects with his tax dollars, based on the history congress has wasting those tax dollars in the past. So ultimately nothing is going to happen. We are going to experience higher and higher fuel costs and fail to take action to shift energy sources. It will get bad for the average consumer and then it will get really bad, and then it will get unbearable. All the while, people all over the country will log onto various internet forums and blame the government and oil companies and investors/speculators for the great big mess they got us into. Does anyone here think we should be doing a bit more than just blaming others? That maybe we should seek long term solutions and pay the cost of implementing those solutions.202Views0likes0Comments
Groups
