Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The administration's train wreck of an energy policy, antagonistic relationship with fossil fuel development and prolific deficit spending are contributing to high gas prices.
Obama sets gas prices?????????
Who Knew?????
Shut the fuck up..First European countries cannot produce their own oil and gas.
In Europe gas prices are $8-10 Per gallon. 4$ gallon is nothing.
What are you babbling about?Its like yoiu people never read the history of WWII?
do you understand what this country accomplished in a year?
Whole industries were cranked from cars to tanks in months
You are a total utter idiot. How is gas made?? One guess.. OIL?? Yeah!! thats right oil which most is gotten in the middle east!! We make the gas but we do not provide all the oil!!
Gasoline is our number one export. We have loads of gas.
Obama sets gas prices?????????
Who Knew?????
Shut the fuck up..First European countries cannot produce their own oil and gas.
In Europe gas prices are $8-10 Per gallon. 4$ gallon is nothing.
Second, roughly 70% of the price of gas in European countries is due to taxes.
Great, we should pay ten bucks a gallon as a "political me too"...
You fucking libs would be going out of your minds if gas was that expensive. You'd accuse the oil companies of price gouging. You's scream that Republicans and Wall Street made gas expensive so that only "the rich" could drive cars...
That's almost as high as they were under Bush
1940's tech is considerably simpler than modern technology which means changeover and production is much simpler too.Whole industries were cranked from cars to tanks in months
too cheap?Bull and shit. You cannot logistically convert this nation over to an alternative energy source in 1 year, let alone realize any damn savings. This is particularly obvious when you realize that NONE of the alternatives equal the efficiency and energy density of oil, particularly gasoline.
Gas and other traditional fuels are still too cheap to force us into alternative markets, particularly with the amount of infrastructure in place
You don't need to be an engineer. This info is freely available online if you look for it. Shit, even Sim City 2 figured it out.Consider how land intensive solar is, and then realize it only works when it's light enough. Compared to hydro which works 24/7/365 as long as there is water which if you're smart is always, there is no comparison.i agree it wont happen in months, but why keep procrastinating? when do we start seriously investing in alternatives?
i agree oil certainly produces the most energy, but are u telling me start to invest in a power grid and solar panels in a desert would not be a good long term investment? and at least reduce demand for oil somewhat in the future
i am no engineer and dont know what is most cost effective or produces the most energy, i just know i would like some serious investments made in alternatives very soon. no need to kick the can down the raod any further. unless the oil lobby continues to exert so much influence
Bull and shit. You cannot logistically convert this nation over to an alternative energy source in 1 year, let alone realize any damn savings. This is particularly obvious when you realize that NONE of the alternatives equal the efficiency and energy density of oil, particularly gasoline.
I don't agree. We could do it; all it takes is the will and determination to do so. Which is why, when the topic comes up, I recommend that we stop all development of new weapons systems but still continue with the research. Because we don't need to mass produce fighter jets 3 generations ahead of what the other guys have (yet) because their designs are likely ones that they copied from us anyway.
We need catalyst for the determination and outside of a real and palpable threat to our national security, it isn't coming. You're right about the savings short-term though. There will be none.
However, it is foolish to think that if everybody started getting 40-60 mph from their cars, that we would use as much oil. That is pretty easy to see that we would use much less.
TM is off the mark when it talks about saving heating costs. Very small percentage of your electrical power comes from oil fired power plants. Coal is the source of that power more or less.
actually the ecofascisti fight new nuclear every step of the way. The French have it figured out, but not these guys.Coal is the source of that power more or less.
Hydro
Nuclear
Coal
The three most efficient forms of generating electricity. All three have negative environmental impact that the left refuses to acknowledge as an acceptable sacrifice. It's either submerged land or destroyed wetlands. Or possibly nuclear waste and possible meltdown. And of course burning coal throwing emissions into the air and tearing up mountains is unacceptable too.
No, they want us to play with pinwheels, mirrors and moonshine, pretending it can do the heavy lifting of a modern nation when it most certainly cannot. Modern society costs. If these risks are too much, they should go live in the jungles of Brazil or Africa, bareassed, dirty sick and hungry.
I can't argue with your premise although you seem to err toward the spectacular in your 2nd paragraph.
We need more nuke yesterday. Nothing comes without risks or offsets.
Which is why we also need a regulatory environment on steroids to try to make sure we don't have the same occurrence they had in Japan. Still, the risk is there.
We've had a nuclear navy for how many decades now? To think that we can't put their safety record of reactor maintenance, security, and stability on-land is stupid. Sadly, many of the lefties here are risk-adverse.
I think there is a big possibility for wind; I'm curious why they can't use clear plastic for the turbines though. It would seem as though that would get rid of a lot of the "sight pollution"/bullshit arguments.
$4.00 a gallon for gas will be cheap once Iran closes the Strait of Hormoz to all exept what they want to export going to whoever they want to export it to.
They can afford it by stopping waste on government health care. Take that money and instead of playing games with 'unique services' which medicine isn't, and start doing something productive with it that will advance this nation like infrastructure building, repair and expansion. We need to increase our energy production nationwide by 250% if we are to make it through this century as a leader. that's a lot of jobs to create. Our transportation infrastructure needs updating. Our information infrastructure needs completing.Bull and shit. You cannot logistically convert this nation over to an alternative energy source in 1 year, let alone realize any damn savings. This is particularly obvious when you realize that NONE of the alternatives equal the efficiency and energy density of oil, particularly gasoline.
I don't agree. We could do it; all it takes is the will and determination to do so. Which is why, when the topic comes up, I recommend that we stop all development of new weapons systems but still continue with the research. Because we don't need to mass produce fighter jets 3 generations ahead of what the other guys have (yet) because their designs are likely ones that they copied from us anyway.
We need catalyst for the determination and outside of a real and palpable threat to our national security, it isn't coming. You're right about the savings short-term though. There will be none.
However, it is foolish to think that if everybody started getting 40-60 mph from their cars, that we would use as much oil. That is pretty easy to see that we would use much less.
TM is off the mark when it talks about saving heating costs. Very small percentage of your electrical power comes from oil fired power plants. Coal is the source of that power more or less.
"Will and determination" doesn't pay for anything.
Here's the issue. The federal government cannot raise enough tax revenue to pay for these grandiose projects. The private sector sees little chance of return on investment.
These things MUST BE PAID FOR. As long as it is money that it takes to get these thngs done, it is what it is.
Easy...There is NO MONEY in it.Yes, and paid for by the US government by bond selling for the war effort. It also took them over 2 years of dedicated distribution to get even a few thousand tanks over to the fronts and have a real difference. Now you're talking millions of cars on a totally incompatable power structure to what's there. You think it's going to only take months? Again. Bull and Shit. You have no idea what the requirements are for a modern era changeover of industrial output. This changeover could not be done in 10 years let alone 10 months, and you can fully expect in the second year, the mid term elections will end most of this bullshit because it's an ineffective solution for the needs of a prosperous nation.Whole industries were cranked from cars to tanks in months
I know you're used to living in the third world (a la detroit this week), but the rest of us don't want to live that way nor do we have to.
i agree it wont happen in months, but why keep procrastinating? when do we start seriously investing in alternatives?
i agree oil certainly produces the most energy, but are u telling me start to invest in a power grid and solar panels in a desert would not be a good long term investment? and at least reduce demand for oil somewhat in the future
