If 25% of a commodity is removed, will the consumers' cost go up?

[Ray From Cleveland]

But would you call that the primary source when it is less than half the generation of nat gas? Of course, overall production does not reflect what one county may rely on vs another, the complete picture is more detailed than I would even begin to know. Either way, some form of other power must remain in the off chance that the wind decides to change its mind - we are nowhere near being able to predict weather and wind patterns with complete accuracy even if we do know some areas that are fairly reliable.

I don't know about that. Maybe I'm wrong, but if there is no wind, there is no electric generation. If it's too windy, I was told those windmills shutdown. I was told after they start spinning to fast, it just locks out and doesn't start up again until the wind dies down.

Hence why I said it is not a good primary source, you need something that can handle power requirements when wind, solar or any other variable power source cannot. If we ever develop sufficient power storage this may change but we are nowhere near that capability and it may never make good sense. I am not sure what you were trying to get at with this response in relation to my statement?

For the most part I'm agreeing with it. If we let these global warming people go to far, there will be no backup. We will be totally reliant on alt fuel only.

Yea, electric cars are fantastic. But let these people come up north here and sit in a traffic jam because of an accident on the highway for three or more hours in the middle of a snow storm with your heater and blower on high just so you don't freeze to death and can see out of your windshield. Better take a lot of emergency warm clothing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, that is the point. Small scale energy generation is extremely inefficient. Hence why getting your own windmill is just a silly thing to do because you want to and why your antidotal story is pretty much pointless. The fact that his windmill broke even is actually a pretty damn good example of its efficacy, in its most inefficient state he did not lose anything.

The only reason I brought up a generator was to say it would be the only additional investment I would make towards power. Solar panels don't work very well when your roof is covered with snow. A windmill (as we discussed) is inefficient. As for the business owner, he was lucky he broke even. What would have happened if it became defective a year before he broke even? He would have been at a loss.

 

[healthmyths]

I love how the green energy fools don't have a clue of which they support.

The batteries of electric vehicles are far heavier than gas powered cars. To make up for the weight EVs use far more plastic in their build. Where does plastic come from? Fossil fuels. From what is the bulk of the electricity used to power electric cars created? Fossil fuels. And let's not forget the mining required to obtain the rare earth metals used in creating the batteries and chips is mainly in China and uses both toxic chemicals and slave labor to extract.

And then the question is, what do we do with all these used up car batteries? It will be like nuclear waste. We will be scrambling around to find places to get rid of the crap.

By 2040, more than half of new-car sales and a third of the global fleet—equal to 559 million vehicles—is projected to be electric. This poses serious challenges. Electric vehicle batteries typically must be replaced every seven to 10 years for smaller vehicles and three to four for larger ones, such as buses and vans. Declining performance for an electric vehicle battery is evidenced by fewer miles of driving per charge and more frequent plug-ins by owners. The global stockpile of these batteries is expected to exceed 3.4 million by 2025, compared with about 55,000 last year. This is almost a 62-fold increase in 7 years

The Afterlife of Electric Vehicles: Battery Recycling and Repurposing - IER

By 2040, more than half of new-car sales and a third of the global fleet—equal to 559 million vehicles—is projected…

www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

 

[healthmyths]

But would you call that the primary source when it is less than half the generation of nat gas? Of course, overall production does not reflect what one county may rely on vs another, the complete picture is more detailed than I would even begin to know. Either way, some form of other power must remain in the off chance that the wind decides to change its mind - we are nowhere near being able to predict weather and wind patterns with complete accuracy even if we do know some areas that are fairly reliable.

I don't know about that. Maybe I'm wrong, but if there is no wind, there is no electric generation. If it's too windy, I was told those windmills shutdown. I was told after they start spinning to fast, it just locks out and doesn't start up again until the wind dies down.

Hence why I said it is not a good primary source, you need something that can handle power requirements when wind, solar or any other variable power source cannot. If we ever develop sufficient power storage this may change but we are nowhere near that capability and it may never make good sense. I am not sure what you were trying to get at with this response in relation to my statement?

For the most part I'm agreeing with it. If we let these global warming people go to far, there will be no backup. We will be totally reliant on alt fuel only.

Yea, electric cars are fantastic. But let these people come up north here and sit in a traffic jam because of an accident on the highway for three or more hours in the middle of a snow storm with your heater and blower on high just so you don't freeze to death and can see out of your windshield. Better take a lot of emergency warm clothing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

By 2040, more than half of new-car sales and a third of the global fleet—equal to 559 million vehicles—is projected to be electric. This poses serious challenges. Electric vehicle batteries typically must be replaced every seven to 10 years for smaller vehicles and three to four for larger ones, such as buses and vans. Declining performance for an electric vehicle battery is evidenced by fewer miles of driving per charge and more frequent plug-ins by owners. The global stockpile of these batteries is expected to exceed 3.4 million by 2025, compared with about 55,000 last year. This is almost a 62-fold increase in 7 years

Also known as putting lipstick on a pig. Make yourself happy now, and let those behind you figure out how to deal with the problems you created to make your happiness long after you're gone.

 

[kaz]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

I didn’t say that, why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

Actually they already are in the process of adding 1500 more MW of wind capacity and plan for more beyond that. Apparently Texas is larger than you thought.

Or they could build a few natural gas plants and not buttify their countryside, but whatever

Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

Gotcha, I have to change your mind or I lose. You don't have to change mine.

You're just getting stupid now, I'm out.

But the facts are we ARE doing wind and we are NOT doing far, far more cost effective and carbon emission reducing opportunities.

But if you consider that a win, go ahead. But there is no reason or logic to your great win that you weren't convinced by facts

 

[NightFox]

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

"There is no break even point."

Of course there is

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Pointing at the fact windmills have a carbon footprint is rather silly tbh considering that ignores the fact there is a massive difference in that carbon footprint over those ten years and the one that a power source using fossil fuels would produce in that time period.

Strawman. "You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral."

Fail. That was never my argument. Not sure if you're not reading, not following or thinking of another poster, but that is NOT my argument anywhere

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

Not your argument?

you keep talking about the carbon footprint of windmills. What are you harping on then? The carbon footprint of windmills is irrelevant as it is a tiny fraction of the carbon footprint of, you know, actually burning carbon.

So that windmills don't do what they are supposed to do (reduce carbon emissions) is irrelevant. Got it. Thanks for that insight.

If you read my posts, you'd know my argument is actually that if our goal is reducing emissions, we should be replacing coal plants with nuclear, natural gas and clean coal plants. But you go ahead and feel good while accomplishing nothing, that's what leftists are all about

And if you read any of my posts you would know I am not a 'leftist' but when you have to resort to asinine labels it means you are reaching.

Sure, we should be using nuclear and natural gas as well, we should be using EVERYTHING because you do not simply ignore something that is economically viable without cause. There are places where wind is economically viable and whining about the carbon used to create them is nothing more than a distraction. Particularly when you are operating under the premise that AGW is a hoax - if you think that then pointing out the carbon footprint is beyond pointless.

Windmills DO reduce overall carbon, that is blatantly obvious and here you are again denying that basic fact. No one anywhere with half a brain is stating that we need to rely on wind power as a backbone for our power production, that is clearly asinine because we all know the wind is simply not as reliable as other methods and power supply must be absolutely reliable. However, that says nothing about augmenting our current power needs with some wind. It will never be one of the primary power generation methods in this nation but it does not have to be to be useful.

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

I didn’t say that, why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

Actually they already are in the process of adding 1500 more MW of wind capacity and plan for more beyond that. Apparently Texas is larger than you thought.

Or they could build a few natural gas plants and not buttify their countryside, but whatever

Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

Gotcha, I have to change your mind or I lose. You don't have to change mine.

Who said anything about "losing"? Sheesh.. got ego trip?

You're just getting stupid now, I'm out.

K, Later.

 

[kaz]

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

I didn’t say that, why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

Actually they already are in the process of adding 1500 more MW of wind capacity and plan for more beyond that. Apparently Texas is larger than you thought.

Or they could build a few natural gas plants and not buttify their countryside, but whatever

Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

Gotcha, I have to change your mind or I lose. You don't have to change mine.

Who said anything about "losing"? Sheesh.. got ego trip?

You're just getting stupid now, I'm out.

K, Later.

NightFox: Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

Um ...

NightFox: Who said anything about "losing"? Sheesh.. got ego trip?

I thought most of our discussion was pretty nice. I'm not sure why you're just being a dick now

 

[NightFox]

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

I didn’t say that, why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

Actually they already are in the process of adding 1500 more MW of wind capacity and plan for more beyond that. Apparently Texas is larger than you thought.

Or they could build a few natural gas plants and not buttify their countryside, but whatever

Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

Gotcha, I have to change your mind or I lose. You don't have to change mine.

Who said anything about "losing"? Sheesh.. got ego trip?

You're just getting stupid now, I'm out.

K, Later.

NightFox: Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

FYI:
Reality didn't go your way, RE: Texas is building windmills instead of the NG plants you wanted them to build instead.

Um ...

NightFox: Who said anything about "losing"? Sheesh.. got ego trip?

I thought most of our discussion was pretty nice. I'm not sure why you're just being a dick now

Uh-huh, perhaps you should go back and re-read some of your own snarky responses.

Asta la vista, part deux

 

[kaz]

Good post FA_Q2 , just one point, wind is one of the primary power generation sources in some areas of the country. For example Texas, despite its problems with winterization has the highest generation capacity in the U.S. with reserves of over 12% above peak demand and some of the lowest electricity prices in the U.S. Gets 20% of its electricity from wind, that’s only behind Natural Gas (47.4%) and even with Coal (20.3%).

Found this interesting:

Texas’ Electricity Resources

Yes, clearly all the other States have massive amounts of open land with lots of reliable wind they can build massive wind farms on like Texas does. Oh wait ...

I didn’t say that, why are you attempting to put words in my mouth?

Well, at least Texas can just keep building more wind farms as their energy needs grow. It's not like they have already used the best spots or anything. Oh wait ...

Actually they already are in the process of adding 1500 more MW of wind capacity and plan for more beyond that. Apparently Texas is larger than you thought.

Or they could build a few natural gas plants and not buttify their countryside, but whatever

Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

Gotcha, I have to change your mind or I lose. You don't have to change mine.

Who said anything about "losing"? Sheesh.. got ego trip?

You're just getting stupid now, I'm out.

K, Later.

NightFox: Uh-huh, sorry reality didn't go your way on this one kaz, better luck next time.

FYI:
Reality didn't go your way, RE: Texas is building windmills instead of the NG plants you wanted them to build instead.

Um ...

NightFox: Who said anything about "losing"? Sheesh.. got ego trip?

I thought most of our discussion was pretty nice. I'm not sure why you're just being a dick now

Uh-huh, perhaps you should go back and re-read some of your own snarky responses.

Asta la vista, part deux

I asked if you have a $1000 bill and a $50 bill, would you prefer to get 50% off the hundred dollar bill or 100% off the $50 bill. You chose 100% off the $50 bill.

You've answered my question clearly. That in your mind was you being the winner. You're not logical, I got it. You can get it go now

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

FACT:
About a quarter (25%) of U.S. oil and an eighth of the nation's natural gas is produced on federal lands.
Supporting link: U.S. oil and natural gas production to fall in 2021, then rise in 2022 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

FACT:
If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?

PROOF!!!

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden​

Biden's attack on U.S. energy producers, starting with his freeze on federal oil and gas leases, will assuredly take a toll on output down the road and cause prices at the pump to rise.
But today, Biden has pushed those prices, which were already rising because of severe weather, even higher by gratuitously alienating Saudi Arabia. The Gulf kingdom just surprised energy markets by announcing it would not raise oil output, despite developing supply constraints and rising prices.
Oil prices jumped on the news, popping 4 percent to pre-pandemic levels for the first time in a year; the surge rattled markets alread

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden

Doesn't mean much with the left's push toward electric vehicles. Demand could be decreased by twenty-five percent as well.

To make renewables competitive they have to make fossil fuels more expensive.

 

[FA_Q2]

But would you call that the primary source when it is less than half the generation of nat gas? Of course, overall production does not reflect what one county may rely on vs another, the complete picture is more detailed than I would even begin to know. Either way, some form of other power must remain in the off chance that the wind decides to change its mind - we are nowhere near being able to predict weather and wind patterns with complete accuracy even if we do know some areas that are fairly reliable.

I don't know about that. Maybe I'm wrong, but if there is no wind, there is no electric generation. If it's too windy, I was told those windmills shutdown. I was told after they start spinning to fast, it just locks out and doesn't start up again until the wind dies down.

Hence why I said it is not a good primary source, you need something that can handle power requirements when wind, solar or any other variable power source cannot. If we ever develop sufficient power storage this may change but we are nowhere near that capability and it may never make good sense. I am not sure what you were trying to get at with this response in relation to my statement?

For the most part I'm agreeing with it. If we let these global warming people go to far, there will be no backup. We will be totally reliant on alt fuel only.

Yea, electric cars are fantastic. But let these people come up north here and sit in a traffic jam because of an accident on the highway for three or more hours in the middle of a snow storm with your heater and blower on high just so you don't freeze to death and can see out of your windshield. Better take a lot of emergency warm clothing.

This goes back to the same problem: storage. Current electric cars are garbage except for a very narrow set of circumstances because they simply do not have the ability to store enough juice. Once they fix that problem and find a way that you are not spending an hour charging your car multiple times for a long road trip, then they will become viable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But would you call that the primary source when it is less than half the generation of nat gas? Of course, overall production does not reflect what one county may rely on vs another, the complete picture is more detailed than I would even begin to know. Either way, some form of other power must remain in the off chance that the wind decides to change its mind - we are nowhere near being able to predict weather and wind patterns with complete accuracy even if we do know some areas that are fairly reliable.

I don't know about that. Maybe I'm wrong, but if there is no wind, there is no electric generation. If it's too windy, I was told those windmills shutdown. I was told after they start spinning to fast, it just locks out and doesn't start up again until the wind dies down.

Hence why I said it is not a good primary source, you need something that can handle power requirements when wind, solar or any other variable power source cannot. If we ever develop sufficient power storage this may change but we are nowhere near that capability and it may never make good sense. I am not sure what you were trying to get at with this response in relation to my statement?

For the most part I'm agreeing with it. If we let these global warming people go to far, there will be no backup. We will be totally reliant on alt fuel only.

Yea, electric cars are fantastic. But let these people come up north here and sit in a traffic jam because of an accident on the highway for three or more hours in the middle of a snow storm with your heater and blower on high just so you don't freeze to death and can see out of your windshield. Better take a lot of emergency warm clothing.

This goes back to the same problem: storage. Current electric cars are garbage except for a very narrow set of circumstances because they simply do not have the ability to store enough juice. Once they fix that problem and find a way that you are not spending an hour charging your car multiple times for a long road trip, then they will become viable.

To make renewables competitive they have to make fossil fuels more expensive.

Or subsidize renewables like they do with electric cars.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This goes back to the same problem: storage. Current electric cars are garbage except for a very narrow set of circumstances because they simply do not have the ability to store enough juice. Once they fix that problem and find a way that you are not spending an hour charging your car multiple times for a long road trip, then they will become viable.

At least at my gas station that I frequent, sometimes you have to wait in line for a pump. No big deal, five minutes or so. I can't imagine needing electricity and everybody at a charging island that's going to be there for an hour. But okay, I make it home alright and my battery is just about dead. A storm is coming and knocks the power out about 20 minutes into the charge. Like my employer will be okay with me telling him I can't come in today because I couldn't get my car charged?

Just too many problems with the idea right now.

 

[FA_Q2]

This goes back to the same problem: storage. Current electric cars are garbage except for a very narrow set of circumstances because they simply do not have the ability to store enough juice. Once they fix that problem and find a way that you are not spending an hour charging your car multiple times for a long road trip, then they will become viable.

At least at my gas station that I frequent, sometimes you have to wait in line for a pump. No big deal, five minutes or so. I can't imagine needing electricity and everybody at a charging island that's going to be there for an hour. But okay, I make it home alright and my battery is just about dead. A storm is coming and knocks the power out about 20 minutes into the charge. Like my employer will be okay with me telling him I can't come in today because I couldn't get my car charged?

Just too many problems with the idea right now.

I think the change that is needed is going to be removable batteries. You should be able to pull up to the nearest Texaco or Shell station and have a machine pop out your old battery and put a fresh one in. However, for that to happen they are going to need to get smaller, lighter, simpler and have a longer lifespan.

We will get there or something even better will come along and revolutionize personal travel.

 

[MadChemist]

Question... If 25% of a commodity is reduced and eventually eliminated, will that increase the costs to the consumers of that commodity?

FACT:
About a quarter (25%) of U.S. oil and an eighth of the nation's natural gas is produced on federal lands.
Supporting link: U.S. oil and natural gas production to fall in 2021, then rise in 2022 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

FACT:
If 25% of oil and gas on Federal lands is eliminated from the supply will the cost go up to gasoline consumers?

PROOF!!!

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden​

Biden's attack on U.S. energy producers, starting with his freeze on federal oil and gas leases, will assuredly take a toll on output down the road and cause prices at the pump to rise.
But today, Biden has pushed those prices, which were already rising because of severe weather, even higher by gratuitously alienating Saudi Arabia. The Gulf kingdom just surprised energy markets by announcing it would not raise oil output, despite developing supply constraints and rising prices.
Oil prices jumped on the news, popping 4 percent to pre-pandemic levels for the first time in a year; the surge rattled markets alread

As gas prices soar, Americans can blame Joe Biden

Doesn't mean much with the left's push toward electric vehicles. Demand could be decreased by twenty-five percent as well.

Where do you think that electricity comes from ?

Please explain that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think the change that is needed is going to be removable batteries. You should be able to pull up to the nearest Texaco or Shell station and have a machine pop out your old battery and put a fresh one in. However, for that to happen they are going to need to get smaller, lighter, simpler and have a longer lifespan.

We will get there or something even better will come along and revolutionize personal travel.

Perhaps, but in a hundred years or so. Right now, those batteries weigh several hundred pounds. Plus you don't want to risk turning in your one year old battery and getting back a four year old battery. Like all batteries, they weaken as they age, and closer to being totally useless. I don't think that can ever change regardless of the technology.

 

[danielpalos]

Where do you think that electricity comes from ?

Please explain that.

I am advocating for more research into wave energy technologies to help solve our energy and water issues.

 

[healthmyths]

danielpalos
So you believe that capturing ocean waves to generate electricity would solve ALL our energy and water issues?
Now The theoretical annual energy potential of waves off the coasts of the United States is estimated to be as much as 2.64 trillion kilowatthours or the equivalent of about 64% of U.S. electricity generation in 2019.

Wave power - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Wave power potential and types of wave energy devices.

www.eia.gov

Do you consider ocean waves a "replenishable" source?
Do you have any concerns with the damage to ocean life?
impact of wind turbines on the environment and finds that they are “doing great harm to wildlife”.

Wind turbine impacts deplored – Physics World

The Global Warming Policy Foundation shares its worries about birds and bats but UK public support for onshore wind is high, says Dave Elliott

physicsworld.com

As it is with wind turbines doing the following, what kind of environmental/weather damage would be done by waves?
•Warming effect strongest at night when temperatures increase with height
•Nighttime warming effect observed at 28 operational US wind farms
•Wind's warming can exceed avoided warming from reduced emissions for a century

Climatic Impacts of Wind Power

We find that generating today's US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24°C. Warming aris…

www.sciencedirect.com

So if wind turbines increase temperatures at night, this means more A/Cs running meaning more energy use.
hmmm...

 

[Turtlesoup]

You want cheap gasoline at any price? Then nationalize the US oil industry. We have the highest lift costs in the world. Our domestic producers have to make a profit or go out of business.

Seriously ignorant comment.....nationalizing anything increases the prices as corrupt pols want their cut, but worse with gas price its like you have no clue how much of the cost is just fucking taxes.