To combat rising gas prices how about we get as many people as possible to work from home again?

  • 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36044 Posts

This would lower demand because a few million people are not driving 5 days a week twice a day. Supply would go up for those still need it, and drive prices down due to the lower demand and higher supply.

Just saying that this was part of what worked really really well when we did this back in 2020. It's unlikely we would see the same low prices, such as less than a dollar a gallon but it would mean prices lower than the $4 or more per gallon we are currently seeing.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38684

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38684 Posts

still working from home. my work just opened up allowing people to go into the office but so far it's voluntary.

personally see no need to go in much. it's just wasted time traveling and for my job the benefits of in-person are minimal

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36044 Posts

@comp_atkins: but with Biden using his State of the Union address to call for people to get back into the office it seems like now is not the time (my opinion is that it should never really be the time) if it means employee suddenly have to pay 60 bucks a week or more in gas prices.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38684

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38684 Posts

@Serraph105 said:

@comp_atkins: but with Biden using his State of the Union address to call for people to get back into the office it seems like now is not the time (my opinion is that it should never really be the time) if it means employee suddenly have to pay 60 bucks a week or more in gas prices.

having a robust WFH infrastructure that was developed during the pandemic, it certainly seems like a good opportunity to use it. however it ought to be entirely voluntary imo.

Avatar image for horgen
horgen

127525

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 horgen  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 127525 Posts

And ruin the value of all those office buildings? I think not.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36044 Posts

@comp_atkins: "however it ought to be entirely voluntary imo."

Sure, how about we either work from home or charge employers for weekly gas costs. Their choice.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23963 Posts

Emphasize the following

Working from Home
Shift to Renewables and Nuclear
Public Transportation
Hydrogen Powered Vehicles
Electric Vehicles
Pedestrianisation
Reduce Urban Sprawl

Office Jobs can be done from home, but a lot of jobs especially those involving manual labour will still need commutation. Anyone who can work from home should do so. Those who can't should be provided means to commute to work without using increasingly expensive fuel.

Avatar image for tjandmia
tjandmia

3741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#9 tjandmia
Member since 2017 • 3741 Posts

I don't believe any of you when you complain about gas prices being too high. If prices were too high, no one would be wasting gas. I do the speed limit on the highway and everyone around me is flying by like I am standing still. When people stop wasting gas and drive the speed limit, then I will be able to take complaints seriously.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36044 Posts

@tjandmia: people gotta drive and use gas regardless of the speed they drive in the moment.

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
WitIsWisdom

9585

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#11 WitIsWisdom
Member since 2007 • 9585 Posts

Or.. perhaps open up our own pipelines and oil sources since it's estimated we have at least between 100-200 years of fuel sources for the US and our allies. Not only would that shut off the money supply to Russia it could also significantly reduce gas prices.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

8324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#12 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 8324 Posts

@WitIsWisdom: 100% EXACTLY

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

8324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#13 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 8324 Posts

we have the resources here at home, just drill, drill, drill...

Leftist solution: just stay home... lmao

FYI most jobs can't be done from home

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

178860

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 178860 Posts

@sargentd said:

we have the resources here at home, just drill, drill, drill...

Leftist solution: just stay home... lmao

FYI most jobs can't be done from home

Conversely get into renewables rather than finite fossil fuels and you won't have to worry about energy dependence.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58444 Posts

There's two things I'd like to see happen:

One, we encourage people to work from home if they can and want to. I'm sure a lot of corporate tools would make the argument that people aren't as efficient at home, but given how so many have done so and kept companies afloat by simply working from home in the middle of a pandemic, I think you could make the opposite argument.

Second, I'd like to see the American workforce transition to a four-day work week. It is better for those of us that commute (one less day on the road), and it is proven to make people better workers as they a.) are at work for longer and can dedicate more time, and b.) every weekend is a three-day weekend so it is better for their mental health.

I mean what can you really do if you work 9-5 five days a week? You get up at 8 to get ready and commute, then you get of at 5 and get home maybe 5:30, cook and eat dinner and suddenly it is 7 and the sun is down. Might as well just commit to an extra two hours each day and get an entire extra day off.

In either case, both of these things would reduce gas consumption and vehicle emissions while improving morale and worker mental health.

Avatar image for deactivated-631373f44e9fd
deactivated-631373f44e9fd

549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 deactivated-631373f44e9fd
Member since 2004 • 549 Posts

4 day weeks are great. Been working them the past several years. Now I'm in an interim period and looking at stupid 9-5 again, blah.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

8324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#17 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 8324 Posts

Man oh man, fight rising gas costs by just working less. Genius lol some of you guys are a trip.

No you bums, DRILL!!!!!!

Supply and demand is how we combat gas prices.

Avatar image for warm_gun
Warm_Gun

2478

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#18  Edited By Warm_Gun
Member since 2021 • 2478 Posts

How about we improve public transportation and stop designing cities like we still live in the old west? Meaning all these wide roads, flat buildings and so many wasteful stretches of space between buildings. Our cities are extraordinarily ugly, because they're so heavily designed for damnable cars.

There are projects I like working on my computer, but I don't think there's a big market for any of them. If you push for more work from home positions, most of them will just be customer service. A call center from home. Customer service is stressful and demeaning.

Avatar image for deactivated-631373f44e9fd
deactivated-631373f44e9fd

549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 deactivated-631373f44e9fd
Member since 2004 • 549 Posts

a 40 hour work week in 4 days is not working less.

smoke another one.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23963 Posts

A 4 day work week is pretty compelling. By far the thing I like the least about working is commuting from and to work. It is an office job so I can work any day from home, but yeah.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23048

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21  Edited By mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23048 Posts

@loonski said:

a 40 hour work week in 4 days is not working less.

smoke another one.

If you crunch it down into 2 days, you'll get what we in IT call "a weekend."

Avatar image for deactivated-631373f44e9fd
deactivated-631373f44e9fd

549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 deactivated-631373f44e9fd
Member since 2004 • 549 Posts

@warm_gun: working customer service made me more concerned about edc (every day carry) than walking down some shady alley st at night, lol.

Avatar image for tjandmia
tjandmia

3741

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#23 tjandmia
Member since 2017 • 3741 Posts

@Serraph105 said:

@tjandmia: people gotta drive and use gas regardless of the speed they drive in the moment.

They do have to drive and use gas. They don't have to waste gas by driving unnecessarily fast. They choose to do that. That means gas isn't expensive enough to change bad habits.

Avatar image for gamefan606
gamefan606

3930

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By gamefan606
Member since 2005 • 3930 Posts

@sargentd said:

FYI most jobs can't be done from home

That doesn't change the fact that there are other jobs that can be done from home. Taking all those unnecessary trips out of public roads will benefit everyone who still has to commute to work.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

8324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#25 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 8324 Posts

@gamefan606: working from home isn't going to lower gas prices.. that's a side effect of not wanting to drive because of higher gas prices...

Solution is extremely simple, and the USA has enough resources to make it happen. DRILL BABY DRILL

Avatar image for deactivated-631373f44e9fd
deactivated-631373f44e9fd

549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 deactivated-631373f44e9fd
Member since 2004 • 549 Posts

@sargentd: stop staring at boeberts butt.

j/k

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

I love this idea that the only way to fight world wide oil price surging is to produce more domestic oil at home, which will likely hit international markets and be spent abroad. It's not like domestic production will be sold to Americans first or at a discount. Those companies are going to sell it to the highest bidder. Sure, by pumping more the oil market will be flooded with more supply but nothing is solved except for 'somewhat' short term price reductions. But eventually we end up right back where we ended.

If we want to alleviate this problem the solution is less demand on oil use. We need to switch to EVs and renewables as fast as we can.

Avatar image for sargentd
SargentD

8324

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#28 SargentD
Member since 2020 • 8324 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan: the infrastructure in place uses oil and gas. We need to drill to alleviate the current energy crisis.

We can work on green energy but that's something that's going to take decades. It won't do any thing for the current situation.

We are now going to stop buying Russian oil and are going to the Saudis to beg for theirs. This is moronic, we have enough resources here. We should have never slowed down drilling here. It's pointless anyway if your just paying foriegn countries to do the dirty work for us. Just drill this is stupid.

We have plenty of energy in natural gas and oil here in the states, right now. Just drill, put your green energy pride to the side for just a second.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@sargentd said:

@HoolaHoopMan: the infrastructure in place uses oil and gas. We need to drill to alleviate the current energy crisis.

We can work on green energy but that's something that's going to take decades. It won't do any thing for the current situation.

We are now going to stop buying Russian oil and are going to the Saudis to beg for theirs. This is moronic, we have enough resources here. We should have never slowed down drilling here. It's pointless anyway if your just paying foriegn countries to do the dirty work for us. Just drill this is stupid.

We have plenty of energy in natural gas and oil here in the states, right now. Just drill, put your green energy pride to the side for just a second.

Then tell me why our oil companies domestically aren't jumping to the gun to drill on land that they currently own and have leases for? These companies don't need Biden to give them a rubber stamp of approval. These companies have the means to ramp up production without the government dangling more leases in front of them so they can sit on it and claim it on their balance sheets for decades. Better yet, why not ask them to not send it overseas at a discount.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
mattbbpl

23048

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 mattbbpl
Member since 2006 • 23048 Posts

Just tell the scientists in the lab to release the next variant.

Avatar image for warm_gun
Warm_Gun

2478

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#32  Edited By Warm_Gun
Member since 2021 • 2478 Posts
@loonski said:

@warm_gun: working customer service made me more concerned about edc (every day carry) than walking down some shady alley st at night, lol.

Yeah, surprised it doesn't happen more often.

Boss telling him to smile.

Avatar image for joementia
joementia

193

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#33 joementia
Member since 2022 • 193 Posts

Well, higher gasoline/petro costs will force economies and countries to become more efficient or seek alternative sources. Maybe this is the push the green/renewables need? Maybe nuclear - which is carbon free - comes back in favor (thorium plants anyone?).

Avatar image for deactivated-631373f44e9fd
deactivated-631373f44e9fd

549

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 deactivated-631373f44e9fd
Member since 2004 • 549 Posts

@warm_gun: haha, it was just the mix of people treating me like shit be it over the phone or in person. even making personal threats n such.

wh admin can go **** itself. Oh gas a problem? just buy an EV!

Avatar image for kadin_kai
Kadin_Kai

2247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#35 Kadin_Kai
Member since 2015 • 2247 Posts

@Serraph105: That would certainly help a little but it’s not exactly a long term solution, especially for Europe.

Moreover, Brent and WTI (the benchmarks) largely follow in tandem with the amount of US dollars in the system, which is one reason why oil has been so expensive even before the Russia-Ukraine issue.

Most of the world’s oil prices don’t completely follow the supply and demand for crude oil. It’s a calculation using a benchmark called Dated Brent or Nymex WTI, these are largely tracking global stock markets.

You take the benchmark, plus/minus a EFP, plus/minus a CFD and then plus/minus the individual oil differential.

Russian Urals crude is now at a massive discount against the Dated Brent benchmark, but the benchmark itself is ridiculously high.

Interestingly, Dated Brent is tied to a type of crude called, Forties in the Northsea and that’s owned by a Chinese oil firm.

You can check the weird and wonderful oil pricing mechanisms at:

https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/our-methodology/price-assessments/oil/dated-brent-price-assessment-explained

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#36 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

@joementia said:

Well, higher gasoline/petro costs will force economies and countries to become more efficient or seek alternative sources. Maybe this is the push the green/renewables need? Maybe nuclear - which is carbon free - comes back in favor (thorium plants anyone?).

Maybe more towards nuclear. But it'll show a lot of people that "green" isn't really sustainable, or cost effective, and just results in a different kind of energy dependency. Not enough fear mongering about the world ending in 12 years will change that reality. The war on energy bullshit the greenies have been waging the past couple decades (to support companies they are invested in) has already done enough damage, and since their only interests are profits in their industries (not actually saving the environment despite what their propaganda tells you) they're going to be far be the biggest obstacle to nuclear... they are now.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38684

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#37  Edited By comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38684 Posts

@sargentd said:

@HoolaHoopMan: the infrastructure in place uses oil and gas. We need to drill to alleviate the current energy crisis.

We can work on green energy but that's something that's going to take decades. It won't do any thing for the current situation.

We are now going to stop buying Russian oil and are going to the Saudis to beg for theirs. This is moronic, we have enough resources here. We should have never slowed down drilling here. It's pointless anyway if your just paying foriegn countries to do the dirty work for us. Just drill this is stupid.

We have plenty of energy in natural gas and oil here in the states, right now. Just drill, put your green energy pride to the side for just a second.

it isn't as simple as "drill baby drill"

the majority of the US untapped oil is shale oil which is much more costly to extract. look at what happened a few years back when oil prices dropped significantly due to OPEC retaliation and a large number of US producers had to stop extraction as it was no longer profitable.

increases from the US producers to drop prices, while profitable in the short term, may be shooting themselves in the foot again. especially if OPEC decides to increase production again as well to drive US producers to stop.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23963 Posts

@sargentd said:

@HoolaHoopMan: the infrastructure in place uses oil and gas. We need to drill to alleviate the current energy crisis.

We can work on green energy but that's something that's going to take decades. It won't do any thing for the current situation.

We are now going to stop buying Russian oil and are going to the Saudis to beg for theirs. This is moronic, we have enough resources here. We should have never slowed down drilling here. It's pointless anyway if your just paying foriegn countries to do the dirty work for us. Just drill this is stupid.

We have plenty of energy in natural gas and oil here in the states, right now. Just drill, put your green energy pride to the side for just a second.

This attitude is just as naive as the whole let's get rid of debt by printing more money. What could possibly go wrong?

You do realize that most untapped oil reserves are most likely shale oil? Furthermore, the more we drill, the more expensive extraction is going to get. You ignore how markets will just sell to the lowest bidder, which might not even be the US. What you argue for might be a short term solution, but it is ultimately going to bite the US in the rear.

While the US doesnt have the lowest oil consumption per capita, you will quickly notice that the US consumes around 2 (if not more) times the ammount per capita, as other well developed countries. Look at france in what I linked, their consumption is at 400, while the US is at 900.

I agree with you that the solution is to look at supply and demand, but instead of the supply side, lets reduce the demand.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#39 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3872 Posts

@HoolaHoopMan said:

I love this idea that the only way to fight world wide oil price surging is to produce more domestic oil at home, which will likely hit international markets and be spent abroad. It's not like domestic production will be sold to Americans first or at a discount. Those companies are going to sell it to the highest bidder. Sure, by pumping more the oil market will be flooded with more supply but nothing is solved except for 'somewhat' short term price reductions. But eventually we end up right back where we ended.

If we want to alleviate this problem the solution is less demand on oil use. We need to switch to EVs and renewables as fast as we can.

We don't have the electrical generation capacity to switch to EVs nor is there a renewable energy at this time. we have to use what we have and right now that is oil and natural gas.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23963 Posts
@JimB said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I love this idea that the only way to fight world wide oil price surging is to produce more domestic oil at home, which will likely hit international markets and be spent abroad. It's not like domestic production will be sold to Americans first or at a discount. Those companies are going to sell it to the highest bidder. Sure, by pumping more the oil market will be flooded with more supply but nothing is solved except for 'somewhat' short term price reductions. But eventually we end up right back where we ended.

If we want to alleviate this problem the solution is less demand on oil use. We need to switch to EVs and renewables as fast as we can.

We don't have the electrical generation capacity to switch to EVs nor is there a renewable energy at this time. we have to use what we have and right now that is oil and natural gas.

Which is why switching to Nuclear is a great transitional option.

And for cars, Hydrogen powered cars seems like a very wise choice. But really, we should be moving away from cars regardless. There are so many boons to moving away from car dependency. Including tax reductions.

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#41 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3872 Posts

@Maroxad said:
@JimB said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I love this idea that the only way to fight world wide oil price surging is to produce more domestic oil at home, which will likely hit international markets and be spent abroad. It's not like domestic production will be sold to Americans first or at a discount. Those companies are going to sell it to the highest bidder. Sure, by pumping more the oil market will be flooded with more supply but nothing is solved except for 'somewhat' short term price reductions. But eventually we end up right back where we ended.

If we want to alleviate this problem the solution is less demand on oil use. We need to switch to EVs and renewables as fast as we can.

We don't have the electrical generation capacity to switch to EVs nor is there a renewable energy at this time. we have to use what we have and right now that is oil and natural gas.

Which is why switching to Nuclear is a great transitional option.

And for cars, Hydrogen powered cars seems like a very wise choice. But really, we should be moving away from cars regardless. There are so many boons to moving away from car dependency. Including tax reductions.

In the US if you can find a location to build a nuclear power plant the permitting process is ten years before the first construction is started. In the US we will never move away from cars. As far as tax reductions they just get shifted. Hell in Pennsylvania we are still paying taxes to rebuild a town that was destroyed in the late 1800"s.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
Solaryellow

7035

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 Solaryellow
Member since 2013 • 7035 Posts

@JimB said:
@Maroxad said:

Which is why switching to Nuclear is a great transitional option.

And for cars, Hydrogen powered cars seems like a very wise choice. But really, we should be moving away from cars regardless. There are so many boons to moving away from car dependency. Including tax reductions.

In the US if you can find a location to build a nuclear power plant the permitting process is ten years before the first construction is started. In the US we will never move away from cars. As far as tax reductions they just get shifted. Hell in Pennsylvania we are still paying taxes to rebuild a town that was destroyed in the late 1800"s.

PA also took fuel tax (3rd highest) and rather than fixing the terrible infrastructure it went to the state police.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#43 Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

@Maroxad said:
@JimB said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I love this idea that the only way to fight world wide oil price surging is to produce more domestic oil at home, which will likely hit international markets and be spent abroad. It's not like domestic production will be sold to Americans first or at a discount. Those companies are going to sell it to the highest bidder. Sure, by pumping more the oil market will be flooded with more supply but nothing is solved except for 'somewhat' short term price reductions. But eventually we end up right back where we ended.

If we want to alleviate this problem the solution is less demand on oil use. We need to switch to EVs and renewables as fast as we can.

We don't have the electrical generation capacity to switch to EVs nor is there a renewable energy at this time. we have to use what we have and right now that is oil and natural gas.

Which is why switching to Nuclear is a great transitional option.

And for cars, Hydrogen powered cars seems like a very wise choice. But really, we should be moving away from cars regardless. There are so many boons to moving away from car dependency. Including tax reductions.

We should be moving away from cars? That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a long time. Cars do not make people dependent, quite the opposite, it gives them the freedom to work from more remote locations, it gives them the ability to spend extra time with their families so they don't have to leave home 2 hours early to catch a bus before work. Try grocery shopping for a weeks supplies for a family and carry it all back on a bus. Your naive pipe dreams aren't going to save the world, facing reality, the reality is that gasoline is very important and will continue to be for easily a few hundred more years is the reality.

Also, hydrogen? A wise choice? You seem to not know much about hydrogen at all. First off, it's not widely available on this planet without costs and effort to reform it. There are two ways that happens. You can either steam reform natural gas through a nickel catalyst which ends up resulting in hydrogen and carbon monoixe, which can be reformed together to make hydrogen and carbon dioxide, the same waste byproducts as burning fossil fuels directly, but at a net loss of energy from having to convert it to hydrogen first in the first place, or through electrolysis, which requires significantly more electricity than the energy combusting the resulting hydrogen will provide. Unless you find a cost effective way to mine Jupiter, hydrogen isn't, nor will ever be a solution.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23963 Posts
@eoten said:
@Maroxad said:
@JimB said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I love this idea that the only way to fight world wide oil price surging is to produce more domestic oil at home, which will likely hit international markets and be spent abroad. It's not like domestic production will be sold to Americans first or at a discount. Those companies are going to sell it to the highest bidder. Sure, by pumping more the oil market will be flooded with more supply but nothing is solved except for 'somewhat' short term price reductions. But eventually we end up right back where we ended.

If we want to alleviate this problem the solution is less demand on oil use. We need to switch to EVs and renewables as fast as we can.

We don't have the electrical generation capacity to switch to EVs nor is there a renewable energy at this time. we have to use what we have and right now that is oil and natural gas.

Which is why switching to Nuclear is a great transitional option.

And for cars, Hydrogen powered cars seems like a very wise choice. But really, we should be moving away from cars regardless. There are so many boons to moving away from car dependency. Including tax reductions.

We should be moving away from cars? That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a long time. Cars do not make people dependent, quite the opposite, it gives them the freedom to work from more remote locations, it gives them the ability to spend extra time with their families so they don't have to leave home 2 hours early to catch a bus before work. Try grocery shopping for a weeks supplies for a family and carry it all back on a bus. Your naive pipe dreams aren't going to save the world, facing reality, the reality is that gasoline is very important and will continue to be for easily a few hundred more years is the reality.

Also, hydrogen? A wise choice? You seem to not know much about hydrogen at all. First off, it's not widely available on this planet without costs and effort to reform it. There are two ways that happens. You can either steam reform natural gas through a nickel catalyst which ends up resulting in hydrogen and carbon monoixe, which can be reformed together to make hydrogen and carbon dioxide, the same waste byproducts as burning fossil fuels directly, but at a net loss of energy from having to convert it to hydrogen first in the first place, or through electrolysis, which requires significantly more electricity than the energy combusting the resulting hydrogen will provide. Unless you find a cost effective way to mine Jupiter, hydrogen isn't, nor will ever be a solution.

When cities are scaled around the car rather than the person they make us less free. Car culture make people extremely dependant, both on political stability and on car manufacturers. People get less free too, Especially for people who are disabled, young, poor (too poor to afford a car), or for whatever reason doesnt ahve a driver's licence.

I love how your challenge btw. Do you not realize that that is basically the norm for people living in european cities? If cities are scaled to the individual rather than the car, you will quickly realize just how bad the car has been for society. THere is a reason the shift away from cars has been an extremely popular policy here in europe. Lower taxes, better health, better for business, lower carbon emissions, what is there not to love?

The only reason you have to put up with those long waits is because the Public Transporation sector was gutted, in places that actually spends money on public transportation you will have a bus arrive every 15 minutes. Not just that, since most people can commute via other means, we actually end up at our destinations faster than people do in car dependant cities. Why? Because there is VERY little congestion, as people commute via far more space and energy efficient means.

How much more of this do you need? Will the next political crisis be the one till you finally realize that relying on oil is not sustainable?

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#45  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts
@Maroxad said:
@eoten said:
@Maroxad said:
@JimB said:

We don't have the electrical generation capacity to switch to EVs nor is there a renewable energy at this time. we have to use what we have and right now that is oil and natural gas.

Which is why switching to Nuclear is a great transitional option.

And for cars, Hydrogen powered cars seems like a very wise choice. But really, we should be moving away from cars regardless. There are so many boons to moving away from car dependency. Including tax reductions.

We should be moving away from cars? That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a long time. Cars do not make people dependent, quite the opposite, it gives them the freedom to work from more remote locations, it gives them the ability to spend extra time with their families so they don't have to leave home 2 hours early to catch a bus before work. Try grocery shopping for a weeks supplies for a family and carry it all back on a bus. Your naive pipe dreams aren't going to save the world, facing reality, the reality is that gasoline is very important and will continue to be for easily a few hundred more years is the reality.

Also, hydrogen? A wise choice? You seem to not know much about hydrogen at all. First off, it's not widely available on this planet without costs and effort to reform it. There are two ways that happens. You can either steam reform natural gas through a nickel catalyst which ends up resulting in hydrogen and carbon monoixe, which can be reformed together to make hydrogen and carbon dioxide, the same waste byproducts as burning fossil fuels directly, but at a net loss of energy from having to convert it to hydrogen first in the first place, or through electrolysis, which requires significantly more electricity than the energy combusting the resulting hydrogen will provide. Unless you find a cost effective way to mine Jupiter, hydrogen isn't, nor will ever be a solution.

When cities are scaled around the car rather than the person they make us less free. Car culture make people extremely dependant, both on political stability and on car manufacturers. People get less free too, Especially for people who are disabled, young, poor (too poor to afford a car), or for whatever reason doesnt ahve a driver's licence.

I love how your challenge btw. Do you not realize that that is basically the norm for people living in european cities? If cities are scaled to the individual rather than the car, you will quickly realize just how bad the car has been for society. THere is a reason the shift away from cars has been an extremely popular policy here in europe. Lower taxes, better health, better for business, lower carbon emissions, what is there not to love?

The only reason you have to put up with those long waits is because the Public Transporation sector was gutted, in places that actually spends money on public transportation you will have a bus arrive every 15 minutes. Not just that, since most people can commute via other means, we actually end up at our destinations faster than people do in car dependant cities. Why? Because there is VERY little congestion, as people commute via far more space and energy efficient means.

How much more of this do you need? Will the next political crisis be the one till you finally realize that relying on oil is not sustainable?

Not everyone lives in a major urban metropolis. It's not "car culture," It's a necessity that has been a necessity for thousands of years. And I've lived in Europe. Guess what? There was traffic, lots and lots of traffic, so evidently there is a **** ton of people in Europe as well that rely on them. Also living in Europe, I've experience those public transportation systems you hold in high regard. They pale in comparison to being able to drive yourself, or carpool with friends. I would say the only reason you people put up with that is because the climate nazis have gutted those countries from energy independence and caused driving to be so expensive they have no choice.

Lastly, your chart is a joke. It shows a need for energy independence. But people like you don't want energy independence, you want more money thrown at "renewables." You don't care who gets harmed by the rising prices of energy, because you've convinced yourself it's a necessary evil to force people towards dependency on a different industry. You're convinced this is necessary to save the world, and the result from people like you is $8/gallon gasoline, energy dependence on Russia, and your countries bankrolling every bomb dropped, every artillery fired at Ukrainians today. That is what your naive ideological quest for renewables has resulted in.

Not surprising from someone who didn't even know hydrogen production utilizes fossil fuels and outputs CO2.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23963 Posts
@eoten said:

Not everyone lives in a major urban metropolis. It's not "car culture," It's a necessity that has been a necessity for thousands of years. And I've lived in Europe. Guess what? There was traffic, lots and lots of traffic, so evidently there is a **** ton of people in Europe as well that rely on them. Also living in Europe, I've experience those public transportation systems you hold in high regard. They pale in comparison to being able to drive yourself, or carpool with friends. I would say the only reason you people put up with that is because the climate nazis have gutted those countries from energy independence and caused driving to be so expensive they have no choice.

Lastly, your chart is a joke. It shows a need for energy independence. But people like you don't want energy independence, you want more money thrown at "renewables." You don't care who gets harmed by the rising prices of energy, because you've convinced yourself it's a necessary evil to force people towards dependency on a different industry. You're convinced this is necessary to save the world, and the result from people like you is $8/gallon gasoline, energy dependence on Russia, and your countries bankrolling every bomb dropped, every artillery fired at Ukrainians today. That is what your naive ideological quest for renewables has resulted in.

Not surprising from someone who didn't even know hydrogen production utilizes fossil fuels and outputs CO2.

Umm... cars, are a very recent invention, and even before, Carriages was not something afforded to by everyone. But it wasnt a problem because quite frankly, and no matter how many times you ignore this point. Cities back then were scaled for the individual, streets were walkable, and cities were far more dense, and without ridiclious modern zoning laws. Not every zone in europe is the same, and I have lived in both car dependant ones as well those that are phasing out the car, and the car dependant ones are worse for everyone involved, while places like Amsterdam are not only having the most satisfied drivers, but also pedestrians and cyclists. It is a win win for everyone.

Umm what are you talking about? Renewable energy is a way to ACHIEVE energy independence. But since transitioning to renewables just like that is quite the time investment, several of us support using nuclear as an intermediary step. My country uses pretty much nothing but renewables and nuclear power (fossil fuels still used for vehicles and heating) and is one of the most sustainable countries out there when it comes to energy usage.

But if you seriously are in denial of how much car culture changed cities. Look at this pic

Notice how many amenities were demolished to build more highways? I have far more pics where that came from too. Land is no longer being used efficiently, and this is a big problem. This drives up fuel costs enormously.

I am not surprised someone who sees the world in black and white would come up with that ridicilous last sentence. It is about MITIGATION, How many times does this need to be repeated until you finally start getting it? The world isnt built on all or nothings. It is built on maximizing the good and minimizing the bads as much as humanly possible. Maybe it would do you well to not try to take words in people's mouths, lest you get called out on it.

And to bring this discussion back to what this thread is about. One of the things that differ from now and back then is that many people worked from home. People's business would double as their home. This had so many general benefits for society. Now with our service economy, wouldnt it be awesome to bring that part back? So let people who can, work from home? It means less energy consumption, and so much more. It is just a win for everyone.

Avatar image for eoten
Eoten

8671

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

#47  Edited By Eoten
Member since 2020 • 8671 Posts

@Maroxad said:
@eoten said:

Not everyone lives in a major urban metropolis. It's not "car culture," It's a necessity that has been a necessity for thousands of years. And I've lived in Europe. Guess what? There was traffic, lots and lots of traffic, so evidently there is a **** ton of people in Europe as well that rely on them. Also living in Europe, I've experience those public transportation systems you hold in high regard. They pale in comparison to being able to drive yourself, or carpool with friends. I would say the only reason you people put up with that is because the climate nazis have gutted those countries from energy independence and caused driving to be so expensive they have no choice.

Lastly, your chart is a joke. It shows a need for energy independence. But people like you don't want energy independence, you want more money thrown at "renewables." You don't care who gets harmed by the rising prices of energy, because you've convinced yourself it's a necessary evil to force people towards dependency on a different industry. You're convinced this is necessary to save the world, and the result from people like you is $8/gallon gasoline, energy dependence on Russia, and your countries bankrolling every bomb dropped, every artillery fired at Ukrainians today. That is what your naive ideological quest for renewables has resulted in.

Not surprising from someone who didn't even know hydrogen production utilizes fossil fuels and outputs CO2.

Umm... cars, are a very recent invention, and even before, Carriages was not something afforded to by everyone. But it wasnt a problem because quite frankly, and no matter how many times you ignore this point. Cities back then were scaled for the individual, streets were walkable, and cities were far more dense, and without ridiclious modern zoning laws. Not every zone in europe is the same, and I have lived in both car dependant ones as well those that are phasing out the car, and the car dependant ones are worse for everyone involved, while places like Amsterdam are not only having the most satisfied drivers, but also pedestrians and cyclists. It is a win win for everyone.

Umm what are you talking about? Renewable energy is a way to ACHIEVE energy independence. But since transitioning to renewables just like that is quite the time investment, several of us support using nuclear as an intermediary step. My country uses pretty much nothing but renewables and nuclear power (fossil fuels still used for vehicles and heating) and is one of the most sustainable countries out there when it comes to energy usage.

But if you seriously are in denial of how much car culture changed cities. Look at this pic

Notice how many amenities were demolished to build more highways? I have far more pics where that came from too. Land is no longer being used efficiently, and this is a big problem. This drives up fuel costs enormously.

I am not surprised someone who sees the world in black and white would come up with that ridicilous last sentence. It is about MITIGATION, How many times does this need to be repeated until you finally start getting it? The world isnt built on all or nothings. It is built on maximizing the good and minimizing the bads as much as humanly possible. Maybe it would do you well to not try to take words in people's mouths, lest you get called out on it.

And to bring this discussion back to what this thread is about. One of the things that differ from now and back then is that many people worked from home. People's business would double as their home. This had so many general benefits for society. Now with our service economy, wouldnt it be awesome to bring that part back? So let people who can, work from home? It means less energy consumption, and so much more. It is just a win for everyone.

"Renewables" is a misnomer to convince the credulous types like you that you're saving the planet by using them. They almost all rely on materials or resources that are not renewable. It's a push by those with corporate and capital interests in moving people from one industry to one controlled and invested in by those making the push. Green is entirely about $$$. You can't even get enough silicon to build electronics right now, and most the cobalt mines in operation right now are foreign owned. Again, this is an ideological pipe dream not rooted in reality. Your country seems to lack the materials to make renewables a thing without becoming dependent on resources or products of other nations. So move past it, and find something you do have.

And again, with your comments on hydrogen, you prove you've put very little independent thought into the matter. And what are you talking about many people worked from home? Should we bring that back? Bring what back? An era before electricity and fast transportation? What is it with you people and trying to force your misguided pseudo-utopian ideals upon the rest of society almost always against their will? Do you really think you're so much more enlightened than the rest of society that you believe you have better ideas than what is proven to work?

Besides, the nonsense you speak of only serves to force populations to condense, fewer smaller towns, fewer rural communities, bigger metropolitan areas, yet you speak of "shouldn't we bring something back" that existed in an era where civilization was much more spread out.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts

@JimB said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:

I love this idea that the only way to fight world wide oil price surging is to produce more domestic oil at home, which will likely hit international markets and be spent abroad. It's not like domestic production will be sold to Americans first or at a discount. Those companies are going to sell it to the highest bidder. Sure, by pumping more the oil market will be flooded with more supply but nothing is solved except for 'somewhat' short term price reductions. But eventually we end up right back where we ended.

If we want to alleviate this problem the solution is less demand on oil use. We need to switch to EVs and renewables as fast as we can.

We don't have the electrical generation capacity to switch to EVs nor is there a renewable energy at this time. we have to use what we have and right now that is oil and natural gas.

Overnight, possibly not. In the near short term, sure. That's what infrastructure spending is for. If everyone switched to EV right now we'd be around 25% overloaded, but that's a scenario that won't happen. You argument boils down to an obvious observation while ignoring that we can alleviate it easily.

You're kind is continuously ignoring the need to switch gradually, so I'll take your reservations as more bad faith as per usual.

Avatar image for YearoftheSnake5
YearoftheSnake5

9716

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 55

User Lists: 0

#49 YearoftheSnake5
Member since 2005 • 9716 Posts

I started working from home full time late last year. My wife and I use the Volt for daily driving; she doesn't have to use her regular gas car. It has saved us a lot of money, even before the recent price hike.

I got tired of gas prices way back in '08 when it was last hovering around $4/gal. Geopolitical tensions and a pandemic aren't necessary to hike up gas prices. The thing goes up and down all the time. As soon as I saw a plugin I deemed good enough, I dumped my gas vehicle.

Avatar image for Maroxad
Maroxad

23963

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50  Edited By Maroxad
Member since 2007 • 23963 Posts
@eoten said:

"Renewables" is a misnomer to convince the credulous types like you that you're saving the planet by using them. They almost all rely on materials or resources that are not renewable. It's a push by those with corporate and capital interests in moving people from one industry to one controlled and invested in by those making the push. Green is entirely about $$$. You can't even get enough silicon to build electronics right now, and most the cobalt mines in operation right now are foreign owned. Again, this is an ideological pipe dream not rooted in reality. Your country seems to lack the materials to make renewables a thing without becoming dependent on resources or products of other nations. So move past it, and find something you do have.

And again, with your comments on hydrogen, you prove you've put very little independent thought into the matter. And what are you talking about many people worked from home? Should we bring that back? Bring what back? An era before electricity and fast transportation? What is it with you people and trying to force your misguided pseudo-utopian ideals upon the rest of society almost always against their will? Do you really think you're so much more enlightened than the rest of society that you believe you have better ideas than what is proven to work?

Besides, the nonsense you speak of only serves to force populations to condense, fewer smaller towns, fewer rural communities, bigger metropolitan areas, yet you speak of "shouldn't we bring something back" that existed in an era where civilization was much more spread out.

Did you seriously just say that?!? Are you even remotedly aware of how big the fossil fuel lobbying industry is in comparison to renewable energy industry?

It isnt even close.

Everything is about making money. But just like with vaccines, even if big pharma make money from them, they are still a net benefit.

I pity you, you seem so obsessed with being contrarian and supporting "independent thought" you seem to avert yourself from actual evidence. And what the experts are saying. Contrarianism, which is what you are doing is not independent thought at all. You base your opinions on what others think, just that you go in the opposite direction, and proceed to work backwards from your conclusions. Hence every single time you are wrong post you make. Remember how you called the Vaccine a Placebo? Remember all the times you are wrong about transgender, COVID, Climate Change, and so on? Remember how you said that obesity was not an issue? Or you were trying to make a libertarian argument, to defend regulations and policies that lead to higher deficit and taxes?

No one is saying anything about going back to a preindustrial era. What we are saying is that we should use modern technology, to adapt cleaner, more efficient solutions? Why do you think pretty much everyone here in favor of renewables is also in favor of Nuclear? Eliminating car culture doesnt mean getting rid of fast transportation, it means opening up alternatives to cars for getting around. Like you know... france and amsterdam did. And this isn't against people's will at all, the policies I am advocating for are INCREDIBLY popular over here. This is what people want. And even in the US these things are wanted as well, which is why suburban neighbourhoods that adhere to the policies I mention are by far the most expensive, and elected governors are now putting them in place. I also have no idea why you think we are against high speed transportation. Do you even know what we argue for are you just arguing against strawmen?

Seeing as basic comprehension is not your strong point, I will simplify my position for you.

Reduce Fuel Consumption by allowing people from working at home, provide alterantive means of transporation aside from extremely inefficient cars, potentially shifting to a 4 day work week (while keeping 40 hours intact), embrace more efficient energy sources, such as hydrogen. All these changes will be done gradually, as opposed to overnight.