If they have to cut the selling of Russian oil , that will increase prices more. I think they might have to do that as other sanctions have not worked. Putin may threaten nuclear strikes if they do. I can see oil reaching $250 a barrel. Gas at pump $12 a gallon. No way could economy could function properly. If it is $12 in US , then imagine the price in Canada and UK.It would cause a World Wide Depression and Depressions lead to World Wars.
You could see North Korea vs South Korea Russia vs US India vs Pakistan Iran/Syria vs Israel/Saudi Arabia China vs Taiwan Wars between African nations Civil war in Iraq
ps gas here is now $4 a gallon and I am sure $5 before March ends.
$120
$125
$130
$140
$150
$175
$200 or more
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
+1 y
just got gas , $4.26 a gallon here , a new record. I run a lawn service.
Oil up to $120 a barrel , how high will it get with the genius Biden as President?
And do not forget that money is used to pay for Putin's War it is not costing him a cent. Because we are buying his oil When Putin runs low on money, he will just raise the price of a barrel of oil and so will other oil producers and because of SENIOR STUPID PRESIDENT BIDENS shutting down pipelines and refineries to be green so we have to buy other countries oil [ how is that green] to burn. But if we impeach this IDIOT, we have a few that will take his place like Giggles Harris, Never Nancy Pelosi and not old enough yet AOC and the squad, they scare me more because they just want to shut down this country no matter what the cost as long as they have their super big gas guzzling SUVs. to ride around and airplanes to fly where they want to go while we have to take a rowboat to Europe for, we the people to be their version of green.
That also makes no sense, but we've been buying energy from the Diet Soviet Union for two decades, even when we were also producing our own energy and/or getting it from Canada. That's four presidential administrations, including the current one.
They (oil drillers, etc just need to start producing oil, finishing and opening pipelines- period. In the meantime, have the company lawyers sue old slo-joe and his cronies.
I heard a few years back liberals saying they wanted $10 dollars a gallon to get people to drive less, one of the reasons Democrats are an endangered species in rural America. They represent us by 0%. Only a literal A-hole fool would think their ideology for big freaking cities would work in the country.
Guess we know who the a-hole fools are. This is why on day 1 Biden immediately took steps to stop energy independence, there is no way they can force people to anything while being that way.
If those fools wouldn't have put the kibosh on keystone there wouldn't be a shortage of oil. Why would he get oil from the Russians when it's right next door in Alberta. Makes no sense.
Senior Stupid's Presidents way of going green according to him if we shut down gas production there will a shortage of gas the prices of gas will skyrocket, and we will buy less at a high price and thus according to stupid Biden we will buy electric cars. Right up there with AOC and the squad we walk while they ride their Grand SUVs, we are also paying for this war by buying Russian oil. You can thank THE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICA. this has been planned by them for years to destroy our way of living and they are doing a good job of it just look at what your paycheck doesn't buy you any more.
That’s the start just like Jimmy Carter if you read about. Gas ⛽️ lines camped out on Los Angeles freeway. Rationing of ⛽️ Retraction of Economy and interest rates at 18%. It will take 12 years to recover from his actions. Biden is just as big of WAR CRIMINAL AS PUTIN ‼️
Hey dupe? Pay attention. It's a bullshit ruse. It's OPEC looking to cash in on a scared world market. What exactly do you think Biden can do about the price of a barrel of oil? The US bought less than 7% of its natural gas AND crude oil from Russia in 2020. In 2019, Russian crude accounted for only 1.2% of US purchases, so it has nothing to do with Russia.
The US still buys most of its oil from OPEC nations, specifically Saudi Arabia (yeah, our buddies), and then from Canada and Mexico. And no, the pipeline halting doesn't mean shit to the price either. Oil price staging went on long before any pipelines were built anywhere. This is your towel head friends seizing an opportunity born out of fear. But since you like blaming everything on Biden, tell us how it would never have happened if Trump was still President. I need a good laugh today.
sorry you're going to have to wait till I finish laughing at THE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNIST PARTY OF AMERICAS explanation of the fairytale world they believe in they are still blaming Trump for all the Democratic woes, If Trump was President, we would not be in this mess to start with because he would not have done all the stupid thing that Biden did and I do not have to list them because they are already known from refineries to Afghanistan and beyond. Sorry still laughing!
@DARKCLOUD1945X Right, while I chortle at your idiocy for thinking Afghanistan, which Trump initiated withdrawal from, and Putin invading the Ukraine have anything to do the Democratic Party, or that things would be different if Trump were President. Or if the US were heavily in Afghanistan now, Putin would not have done what he did. Sorry, still laughing, but basically because you think the Republican Party is the savior of the USA. What a joke.
And I am still laughing at the twisting and turning of the facts to fit the DEM narratives they make it fit what they want us to believe as the truth and they have no idea of the meaning of the word LMFAO
I hope you are being facetious about biden being a genius. He had a recent CT scan of his brain but they couldn't find anything wrong - - - they couldn't even find ANYTHING, period!
There is really a relatively simple solution: open the Keystone, Michigan 5, and have the US become energy independent - again- as we were with President Trump. biden is putting sanctions against everything OTHER than buying oil from russia. We need to let that sink in a bit - hmmmmm - reject everything else (that is proven to work) OTHER than having the country that is causing a war to be PROVIDING our oil. Proves that common sense is getting less and less common every day.
@Massageman Didn't that numbskull block the pipeline? If we don't have oil it is his fault. What happened to Texas oil production? They on vacation? What happened to all our reserves? My sister said where she lives gas went up 50 cents a gallon overnight.
@Daniela1982 D- are you sure you are reading my post? I agree that biden and his "administration" makes a tree branch look intelligent! but on toward your questions -
Yes, he did. Yes, it will be. It got cut. Not sure. Reserves- lol. He thinks a few million bbls will make a difference in prices? lol In the meantime, our strategic stockpile dwindles. Our prices went up 50¢ overnight too. Actually 70¢ in 2 days - Went up a dime in the morning, a dime that same evening, and 50¢ the next day. argh - - -
What kind of upgrade do we have as a choice? I have no mass transit, there is no charging stations in the forests or mountains here. I'm not even away of a pickup that can make a 500 mile round trip without a charge.
It would be nice to have a affordable upgrade before trying to force a change.
Keep in mind, its going to make FOOD go sky high, how do we upgrade that?
@Aerissa_Jade You as a civilian is not really the one that makes this choice. For example, all those petrol stations were not there originally either. As for cost, that would be solved by itself. If people starts buying electrical vehicles then the price for them will go down as the economy of scale kicks in not to mention additional investments into efficiency and better technology.
My main point here is however that this is the consequences of our actions. We have been warned that this would happen. Putting aside the climate change aspects of the conversation, the US military (As is relevant for the OP) came out long ago and said the biggest national security issue was the reliance on fossil fuels.
Now here we are and PikachuFace. Jpg everything they warned about came true. I am so surprised, no honestly. It is called consequences since if you decide to do something then this will happen as a result. If you are upset about the situation today then you should have done something 40 years ago, like we urged you to.
At this point you just got to take it like an adult and finally do the right thing.
@Soteris Of course most of us just struggle to live day to day, and don't think beyond that. This makes it so we can't, we end up unable to get to work, buy food and homeless. I live in Rural America, the nearest town is 35 miles away and that is the edge, so 45 or so miles to get into anything. No one delivers anything here, we don't even get mail delivery we have to pick it up at the post office.
How do we adjust upgrade? Not saying your wrong, just want to know what to do.
@Soteris I’m all for developing alternatives, but we’re still a hell of a long way from anything other than gas or diesel engines being feasible for anyone that ever wants to leave the city
@Aerissa_Jade I honestly do not give a fuck about your struggles and problems, that is a question for your government which you yourself have the power over.
You had a choice. Either you deal with the problem back then. Yes it would be difficult. Yes there would be high costs involved. Yes people would have struggled but you could have done it and be better for it.
When you decided to not do anything about it you instead picked option B. Option B is today. Option B causes you a lot more problems and damage and is the price you pay for continuing as "normal" when you needed to change.
You get no sympathy from me when this is entirely the fault of the people themselves.
@Redstang88 Then you should have started doing something about it a much longer time ago. This was an obvious problem that was going to come up sooner or later. You made the explicit choice to NOT prepare for it or prevent it and here we are today.
This sort of mentality is what will get the current elite kicked out of power. Our establishment has already lost too much of the audience for its circuses and is boldly taking away the bread. “Don’t particularly care,” indeed.
@Soteris When Henry Ford first created the car, he didn't campaign for all the horses to be slaughtered and all of the carriages to be burned. Motor vehicles took over naturally over a few decades. Alternative energy will eventually take over, but it has to happen the same natural way, and not forced down people's throats.
I’m sorry what choice did I make? I don’t work in the auto industry. If EVs are the future, then yeah let’s keep pushing R&D. But forcing new technology on us when it does not yet meet demands is absurd
@NYCQuestions1976 That is just laughably false. We have forced change on society plenty of times when we have seen the requirement for it. The campaign to end leaded gasoline, the stop and removal of asbestos, lead pipes, change in refrigeration gas etc..
There are countless times where we as a society or the government has recognized a problem and forced a solution even if it is uneconomical or damaging in the short term. In fact, this is often where we do the best accomplishments. The installation of the sewer system in London stands as both one of the most impressive and expensive construction projects in human history to the point where I can't even see something equivalent being done today.
I do not want to hear any of this "Lets just wait and let it happen naturally" nonsense. It is stupid and given the wrong situation it has the potential to literally kill us all. Climate change as an example is incredibly damaging to us both in cost and human lives yet we sit around doing nothing about it until arguably now WHEN ITS TOO FUCKING LATE. Your approach to just sit around and let it happen is an example of the darkest parts of humanity in my opinion.
Scientists could see this coming decades away. They gave you a virtual time machine that you could use to see the horrible future you were about to choose for yourself and yet you did not do anything to change your future. You picked this. You get no sympathy from me, this is your choice and your burden to bear. Now you have to put in the work, sweat and blood to do what should have been done back then, only now it is harder and will accomplish less good but is still required.
@Redstang88 It is not absurd. It is required and has plenty of historical precedents. We knew this would happen, we told you, yet you did not fight for a better future so here you are. This is your choice so fucking own it.
@Soteris Don't lecture me on lead and asbestos removal. I'm licensed to do abatement work in the construction industry. A lot of those changes were legislated back in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Yet there's still abatement needed all over the country. So your use of "forced" is absurdly nonsensical. Also, the removal of lead from gasoline didn't "force" the end of combustion engine era. A ridiculous example.
The climate has been changing for many millennia, and long before humans ever existed. If you really want to make significant changes, eliminate all unnecessary international travel via airlines and cruise ships. International airline travel and luxury cruise ships cause far more atmospheric and oceanic pollution than everyday commuters. If you're jumping on a plane for vacation and/or social reasons at least once a year, you're a part of the problem, and a hypocrite.
@Redstang88 You live in a Capitalist Democracy. Corporations will provide you with the services and products you have a demand for and politicians are simply representing you when they wield their power of office. Literally everything that happens inside your country is ultimately controlled by you, the public.
@NYCQuestions1976 If they had not legislated back in the day regarding Asbestos then you would simply not be removing it at all. The very fact that there is a demand for removing it points towards a project to remove perfectly workable solutions with alternatives. It is not a case of it being removed naturally like you like to think.
The removal of leaded gasoline was a massive effort where the Government demanded a solution and society put in the resources and effort to provide a solution. Kind of what is required now to deal with the issue of fossil fuels, or rather was was required 40 years ago. It is also in our best interests to maintain the current climate even if the climate naturally changes. The climate as it used to be is the best suited for us and our society. Even a natural shift will cost us countless in human lives and resources. The fact that we are personally changing it only makes this a self inflicted problem.
Lastly, this is not only about the climate but also about national security. To prevent economic instability, countries from having power over your own nation as well as preserve your ability to fight a war you need to reduce your dependence on fossil fuels. It is simply a weakness at the very foundation of your country as it is.
@Soteris It IS a natural process. Not forced. Laws are passed, changes are legislated, and it takes time to conform. Especially in the commercial, industrial, and construction industries. When OSHA was created 1971 by Nixon and first started regulating asbestos, they didn't demolish and rebuild every building in the United States within a month, or a year, or decade, or a score.
The United States and Canada have the ability to be energy independent right now, and are also able to sell energy internationally. That eliminates the need to deal with countries like the Diet Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, etcetera. Instead we cancel projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline like incompetent fools.
Eventually alternative energy will become more mainstream and inexpensive, and then take over... but now is not that time. Not yet.
@NYCQuestions1976 If you change it through legislation its not natural. If you finance projects to remove it its not natural. Natural would be replacing it only after it requires replacement due to maintenance and only stop putting in new after you find a better more economical alternative. You did not do that, you choose to conduct uneconomical replacement programs for the only reason to remove functional installations still good for decades to come.
If USA did the same thing they did for asbestos they would fund projects to replace petrol cars and fossil fuel infrastructure with green energy as well as put up charging stations all over the place using public money.
Also I like to point out that the lack of time and force required to conform with the new reality is a direct consequence of you delaying it until this late to actually do something about an imminent problem. You could have taken it easier if you decided to act sooner.
@Soteris Whatever semantics you want to use, legislated or not, things happen at their own pace. The cost of a low-end Tesla is still the same as luxury car. That's not mainstream enough to force a massive public changeover. Also, "public money" is tax dollars. Stop putting your hands in other peoples' pockets. You want something so badly? Use your own tax dollars. You can always volunteer more of your own income above your annual required obligations when you prepare your taxes every year. Or you can start a GoFundMe and donate the proceeds directly to the government. Let me know how that works out for you.
@NYCQuestions1976 First of all, Tesla IS a luxury brand. You can get very cheap electric cars that ARE NOT TESLA and that is honestly besides the point. Cost will drop if people start buying them, economy of scale and all that. Furthermore there is nothing really special about the electric vehicles today that would have prevented us from developing them decades ago if we actually decided to invest money and resources into developing them rather than perfect the internal combustion engine.
The reason internal combustion cars are better is mostly because of the insane amounts of resources we have spent into development and manufacture compared to the tiny amount we put into electrical vehicles. You are comparing something we have refined to perfection to something we have barely scratched the surface of. Naturally, if we recognized this earlier we could have just diverted the same resources into electric vehicles in the first place and there you have your "natural progression" since at that point electric vehicles would blow internal combustion engines out of the water.
But that is a bit of a tangent. The removal of things such as asbestos is very much a forced change. Not only is there legislation which forces you legally but they also used tax payer money to remove asbestos. There pretty much is no more "forceful" way to do this if you tried. You need to let go of your fantasy that this happened "naturally" because it sure as hell did not.
@Soteris You can drone on all you want because you don't like my choice of words. The bottom line remains the following: Asbestos regulations were put into place in 1971, and abatements are still going on over a half a century later. You can't force expedient compliance.
Have you ever even tried to tow or transport even a moderate load with an electric vehicle? You lose at least a third of your range, and the supportive infrastructure doesn't exist yet nationally. It's going to take decades before it does. The batteries still weigh far more than their combustion engine equivalents. The technology isn't advanced enough yet to be utilized in the commercial, industrial, and construction industries. Gasoline and diesel engines are not being eliminated anytime soon.
So once the cost and weight comes down for mainstream use, the surface is more than just scratched in a few decades, then we can have serious conversation.
@NYCQuestions1976 You are the one accusing me of arguing semantics and now you are complaining that "I dont like your choice of words". Get over yourself. This is not about semantics. Asbestos is a miracle material with fantastic properties. The availability from just digging it up from the ground combined with the ease of turning it into fibers for fabrics and insulation made it cheap and its properties as acid resistant and fire resistant insulation is invaluable in manufacturing.
Without the government clamping down in it we would still be using it today for pretty much anything ranging from clothes to insulation to mixing it into concrete. There is simply nothing that can compete with its price per performance. The industry was also incredibly reluctant to comply going to extreme lengths to continue using Asbestos such as hiding the severity of its toxicity and the science around it. Something you might be more familiar with the tobacco industry or indeed the oil industry in regards to climate change.
Without a concerted effort on the part of governments to stop its usage as well as pay for its removal it would not go away. The fact that it is still a problem today is more a fact of how popular/useful it actually was at one point and the fact that the US government sucks balls.
As for electric vehicle infrastructure? Easy fix with government support. The electrical grid already extends across the country and you have convenient gas stations specially designed for cars to access. Its a simple matter to add chargers to all of them. Furthermore there is even infrastructure for motor warmers in many places that can be converted into parking places with chargers.
If the country wanted to fix this it would be done in a few years and there would have been no difference doing it today or 40 years ago.
As for electrical engines, they are actually far superior in performance to internal combustion engines. The only thing that is the problem is batteries which could be solved with a liberal use of public funding. Something we could also have done 40 years ago.
You are arguing like a child and your logic is flimsy. Give up, you are just wrong.
@Soteris Get off your high horse. The technology didn't exist in a widespread mainstream affordable way 40 years ago, and it still doesn't exist now. It's 2022 and they're still fighting the weight, size, and (occasionally) the spontaneous combustion issues (from lithium deposits from charging) with batteries. Also, two Type II chargers use as much electricity as 125 homes. Who's making up those financial and energy consumption differences? You?
Typical liberal logic, using the "liberal public funding" argument. "I want something really really badly, but everyone else should put up the money." Yeah right. Only morons with bowls of cereal in their heads want to live with a 50% tax rate. Why should 50% of the money I make as a blue-collar electrician and certified abatement handler (or 50% of ANYONE'S income) be used to fund government bloat instead of using my income for taking care of my family and myself? As I already wrote, volunteer your own income and/or start a GoFundMe, and let me know how that works out for you.
Again, if you're so legitimately concerned with energy production causing climate change, protest against the real source and problem, the airline and cruise ship industries. Any other complaining by you is just nonsensical feel-good virtual signaling.
@NYCQuestions1976 What part of "This could have been developed 40 years ago" dont you understand? If we wanted to AKA put in money and effort to develop electrical vehicles back then we would have had the same breakthroughs we have today. There is no major scientific breakthroughs that separates us on that front, just a question of doing the research.
The whole energy consumption argument is also fucking retarded. Electric vehicles are more energy efficient than internal combustion engines. Energy is energy, we use up more energy in the form of petrol than we would need to power the equivalent in electric vehicles. Even just for the sake of the argument we divert all the petrol into power plants it would be more than enough and easier to clean up the exhaust.
Also I love the typical American conservative viewpoint of not understanding society. Public money is literally the best way to boost the economy as well as do things like remove Asbestos and fighting climate change. The private market has literally shown that they are UNABLE to do it so its not even a contest. If you want change then its ultimately the tax payer that paves the way.
@Soteris Even if someone can successfully argue that the electrical vehicles themselves are more efficient, the cost of charging them, and the time it takes to charge them, are absolutely not. What part of "two Type II charging stations use as much energy as 125 households" don't you understand? Are you picking up the difference in time and price?
I also love the European liberal viewpoint of not understanding society. Especially from a country that excels at six months of darkness, suicides, and mistreating their autistic citizens (I have close friends that live there, and know all about the hell their child was put through by the government). Normal functioning human beings don't need their governments to hold their hands through everyday life or to be successful. If that's what YOU need to live and succeed, and enjoy having your government's hands in your pockets taking half your income for government-sponsored bloat, then good for YOU. Don't force your barely functioning ineptitude on others. If this is something YOU want, then YOU pay for it by volunteering more of YOUR money.
I noticed that yet again you failed to address the fact that unnecessary airline travel and cruise ship travel cause far more atmospheric and oceanic pollution than everyday commuters. The actual industries to blame for climate change pollution. That just tells me all I need to know about you and your real priorities. Nothing more than empty gesturing, feel-good virtual signaling, and hypocrisy. Enjoy your next flight that's helping to contribute to climate change far more than I ever will. 👍
@NYCQuestions1976 "Cost of charging them and the time to charge", there are completely irrelevant and easily solved. If there is an increase in demand for electricity then the supply will follow which will mean the cost is kept down. The final cost you pay would be equal or less than today. As for the time to recharge? If we would not solve the problem of faster charging which is very possible then we could just have a battery swap service.
None of these are actual issues that can't be solved even with the technology we could develop 40 years ago.
But even if it was NOT wrong, so what? We have already scaled up our electrical infrastructure before and we will be forced to do so again and again and again even without this since our demand for electricity continues to increase. This is not even a bad thing. Again, you are just replacing todays oil and gas industry with power plants and electrical infrastructure. They still require the same amount except for the fact that electrical cars are more efficient so require less energy than the equivalent gasoline engine that uses fuel.
So yeah, we would spend less money on electricity and have a better electrical infrastructure grid. What a loss for humanity and if we would not have researched faster recharging (which we definitely CAN) there are plenty of other options such as simply swapping out batteries at "recharge stations".
As for your insistence of bringing up air travel and boats, as if they would prove a different challenge from cars, they could also use electrical engines. In fact I am pretty sure they are working on electrical medium sized passenger planes already not to mention electrical boat engines are widely available.
That said boats are incredibly efficient and there are few airplanes around so they both contribute only a TINY proportion to the overall problem. Cars and trucks contribute like 8 times the combined greenhouse output from boats and airplanes in USA as an example.
The longer this conversation go on the more its just demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about.
@Soteris Where do you get your charts and information from? Liberals-R-Us? Agenda University? Propaganda Productions?
I'm an electrician by trade for decades. This shit is in my wheelhouse. It's you that's droning on with nonsensical gibberish. Using a Level II charger in your home every day/night is the same as running your stove 8 hours day, every single day. That's if you just have one electric vehicle to charge. What if you two? Or three? Or more? Also, do you even know what it costs to install an additional single permanent detected 220 volt outlet in a typical existing household in a country where all of the typical receptacles are 110 volts? Start at $2,500 and keep going. That cost is just for the panel adjustments or additions, new breakers, and running the independent two-phase line that needs to be at least #8 sized wire to handle the charging load. That price doesn't even include the equipment installation in the garage area. Also, this is just for one car. What if your family is changing two or more vehicles at the same time? Now you're looking at a more heavy-duty cable, bigger panel and breakers, etcetera. This installation work and daily electrical usage isn't cheap.
The bottom line is this: Until the electric vehicle technology gets to the point where I can fully charge my car as quickly as filling up a gasoline tank (less than 10 minutes), it remains flawed.
Continued ⬆️ Airlines and cruise ships pollute the planet far more than everyday commuters. Anything else is lies that liberals tell one another when they're on their vacations to feel good about themselves. During the heart of the pandemic in 2020, worldwide pollution was down exponentially. Why? It wasn't from people working from home in metropolitan areas, because the vast majority of them were already using mass transit prior to the shutdown. It wasn't from less cargo shipping on land or sea, because people stuck at home were ordering crap from Amazon like fiends. What major industries weren't up and running during the pandemic shutdown? Airlines and cruise ships. Not a coincidence.
So as I already wrote, enjoy your virtual signaling and hypocrisy. Whatever helps you sleep on your next flight.
@NYCQuestions1976 That chart is from the Department of Energy which is the government department in charge of this. If you are upset about their numbers then cry me a river as they are the literal authority on them.
Speaking of droning on and on, you are just trying to bring up problems that can be solved and will be solved regardless. For example, modern conveniences such as air conditioning and electrical water heating will be standard if they are not already which is not too different from an electric charger for a car and if your grid can't support that you need to upgrade it anyway since it sucks.
Furthermore if you are so concerned that you can't charge your 12 cars at the same time there is nothing that says you can't use a level 1 charger until you inevitably and predictably upgrade your electrical grid. With arguments like yours we would not have things like the internet which is stupidly expensive to install and upgrade all the time such as putting down new cables or upgrading to fiber optics.
Upgrading infrastructure is simply NOT an issue worth talking about. Get over it.
Also worth noting is that most people would not need to stop to recharge on their daily journeys. In USA the daily driver goes about 40 miles a day which is like 13% of the charge in many Tesla cars. Aside from charging at home with the additional possibility of charging at work there is no need for them to go to a recharge station for their travel unless they are taking an unusually long journey.
@Soteris Don't get mad at me because you've got a bowl of cereal in your head and you don't understand electrical theory and basic digital infrastructure.
Nice EPA link. Besides electrical theory not being in the EPA's wheelhouse, it's not an international body, it's an extension of the limousine liberal government, and that information is from before the pandemic. In the second pie chart they don't even separate commuters. Let me help you out:
Bringing up the internet infrastructure is a laughable example. The entire electrical grid didn't need to be completely rebuilt at the start of the internet age. Most of the base of the internet infrastructure is repurposed low voltage DC power supplies from the old land line telephone companies. Category 5 and 6 cables, along with fiber optical cables and servers, needed to be run and installed nationwide, which was a lot of work, but didn't require entire electrical grids to be overhauled.
Finally, you live in a country with barely 10.3 million people, and it's largest city barely has 1.5 million people. The last time the United States had a population of 10.3 million people in the 1820s. Your electrical grid isn't superior; it just doesn't power anything! Except maybe rechargeable flashlights in the Winter?
Meanwhile, I live near, and work in, a city with over 8.4 million people. The surrounding metropolitan area has over 20.1 million people, and the entire northeast megalopolis (Boston to Washington, D. C.) has over 52.3 million people. The United States has nearly 330 million people living here. So the next time you try to tell other people how to spend their money and "fix" their "problems" with socialism, try living in a big-boy country with a big-boy population and big-boy issues to deal with on a daily basis.
@NYCQuestions1976 Yes. Nice EPA link as a source for news about environmental protection. As in its their field of specialty. Going back to what I said earlier, they are the authority on this subject. They are the ones who collect information and do the research so we are pretty much forced to stick with it unless you want to talk about countries outside of the USA.
As for your link, it does not actually support your claims at all. "Fastest growing", not biggest, "most carbon intensive", not most carbon total, "would be one of the top 10 carbon-polluting nations on the planet" does not mean it would be more polluting than cars and trucks. You are falling for sensationalist rhetoric.
As for your electrical grid, if your country has not been overhauled since the dawn of the internet and you are using crappy phone lines then you DESPERATELY need to fix that. In my country we have gone through plenty of re-installation and upgrades not limited to replacing almost all power lines with underground cables as they are safer and have less tress fall on them. Yes our electrical grid is superior, yes it supports heating during winter, yes it supports your oh so dreaded level 2 electrical car chargers with no problem.
Point is, your electrical grid sucks and needs to be upgraded if you can't even support electrical cars. Before you argue, do you want to talk about the Texas electrical grid? Now that is just a national embarrassment if I ever seen one.
Next time you try to tell someone in an actual first world country what sort of car charger they can use, start by getting on our level first.
@Soteris You upgraded your grids in a country of just over 10 million? I can play with Legos also. There's nearly that many people in New York City alone. It's really easy to do things when you've got less than 25½ people per square kilometer.
The Texas grid is completely separate from the national grid here, and it suffered its problems because of an unprecedented meteorological anomaly (three continuous weeks of temperatures as low as -20°C to -30°C in many areas that almost never see temperatures any lower than 5°C). It would be like if your country had to deal with three continuous weeks of temperatures between 45°C and 55°C. That sort of heat wave would cause your grids to either pop like a zit, or you'd have mass casualties on your hands because of lack of air conditioning.
Your blind and/or obtuse attitude towards airline pollution just tells me that you're one of the liberal hypocrites I previously described. As I already wrote, whatever helps you sleep on your next flight.
@NYCQuestions1976 It is easier to upgrade infrastructure with higher population density since it has higher economic impact and therefore pays for itself faster. You can also do it more systematically through standardization rather than work on unique solutions.
I also love your admission that the most powerful country in the world can't do the basic necessities because "Its just too big!". Truly inspirational of you.
As for the Texas powergrid failure.. two years in a row... they were both warned, as well as had historical precedents but perhaps more importantly its not about unusual weather phenomena but just the poor condition of the electrical grid in general. The events are as spectacular in their failure as they are a national embarrassment.
I also like your attempt at taking a potshot against Sweden, as if it would actually change the argument. Sadly for you, insulation intended against cold winters also works against warm summers. It insulates, not heats up. Big difference. Might be unpleasant for some who dont have AC but its hardly a national disaster because we actually have the proper infrastructure.
Lastly, give up on the airplane thing already. I already proved that wrong and its not like you have done anything to counter my claim aside from calling the official numbers from the government a liberal plot or whatever.
@Soteris Your grid supplies power for about 10.3 million people, with an average of less than 25½ people per km². That's really not a braggable accomplishment. It might be newer, but it's not advanced. It just hasn't ever really been tested. Yet.
Meanwhile in comparison, the Northeast Megalopolis (Boston to Washington, D. C.) itself has a population over 52.3 million, with a population density of nearly 360 people per km². I truly don't believe you have the ability to comprehend what sort undertaking that would be... but playing Devil's Advocate, more population might mean more taxes for projects, but you're not going to be working in and around areas with only 25½ people per km². It's not an ambition or inspiration issue. It's logistics. Try having 10,000 people run through your front door at the exact same time, 5 days a week, for 12 to 18 months, and then maybe you'll understand.
A heat wave at 35°C to 40°C over a few weeks would be "unpleasant" as you described. However to match the lengthy emergency cold Texas had to deal with, it would have to be an extended heat wave at 45°C to 55°C. Feeder insulation wouldn't matter at that point. Unless there are no air conditioners to run there. Then sure the grid will be fine... it'll just be body bags instead.
Generated pollution was down drastically around the world in 2020 during the pandemic shutdown. Road and rail usage was generally unchanged during the same time. The only differences were the airline industry was grounded and the cruise ship industry was docked. So again, whatever helps you sleep on your next unnecessary flight. 👍
@NYCQuestions1976 "Hasent ever been tested" my ass. If your infrastructure is built properly it never will be tested in the first place. If your stuff is being "tested" it means you underestimated the requirements even if it passes the test, it never should have been that close to failing in the first place unless there is a good reason for it such as space flight where you have to trade safety and redundancy for performance to even have it function in the first place.
Point is, your infrastructure suck. All of it. Not just Texas pathetic little electrical grid. Not just your shitty internet. Not just your 45,000 structurally deficient bridges. Not just your polluted drinking water. All of USA's infrastructure sucks balls.
As for building infrastructure in higher density areas. Its much easier. Why? Because the more people you are serving the more money and labor you can spend on the project. Lets take roads as an example. If you are connecting a few farmers who are distantly apart you can't really justify building a 4 lane motorway up to every house even if that would allow you to properly build the road with a high standard to resist everything from ground shifts to water drainage.
Instead it will be a shitty gravel road most likely with MAYBE some ditches on the side for drainage if they are lucky. Well its going to take a lot more to destroy the properly built 4 lane road than it is going to take to ruin the shitty gravel one not to mention how often each will get maintained.
Electrical grids in high density areas are just easier to build because you can afford to do it properly. They are also more resistant to things like natural disasters and the like because you can afford to include such protections and higher standards. It also gets maintained more often as you can justify dedicating more staff.
As for Swedish buildings resisting heatwaves? I got no reason to doubt they would hold up perfectly well. If my house can handle -40 it can handle +40 and maybe ill start wearing Tshirts indoors at +50. Also worth noting, a major form of heating in modern Swedish homes is a heat pump which can also be used as AC so its not like the infrastructure isent already mostly built in already.
As for air travel. I already showed you the facts. Give up or cough up some facts of your own.
@Soteris I just can't have a serious conversation with someone whose only experience with urban planning, population, and population density is someone in a country with an entire population of 10.3 million people and "largest" city of around 1.2 million people. Then the second "largest" city is barely 500 thousand. Child's play. There is simply no realistic comparison. The federal compensation that would have to doled out to the millions of people affected and displaced by a full point-to-point overhaul project in the northeast megalopolis alone would cost far more than the project itself.
The worldwide pollution levels were down in 2020 during the pandemic shutdown. The two biggest worldwide industries that were shut down during that time was the airline industry and the cruise ship industry. Google "pollution during the pandemic". Or don't. Whatever helps you sleep on your next flight. 👍
@NYCQuestions1976 Oh shut it you giant hypocrite. Your argument that I lack the experience to understand the complexity of constructing an infrastructure in a country with X number of people can just as easily be used against you since you by your very own argument have no idea about the complexity of constructing an infrastructure here.
Either way it is besides the point. USA is pretty much unique in the world with its failed infrastructure. Pick another country if it makes you feel better, they are doing it correctly, you are not. They can support electric vehicle chargers where as your country, by your own admission, can't. Yet here you are among others trying to champion for further wasted investments in fossil fuel when you dont even have an electrical grid that dont fail because it snows a bit in Texas.
As for pollution going down during the pandemic? Guess what industry also shut down during the pandemic? Fucking industry. All of it. Also a huge decrease in car usage and transport. We are in a global recession and here you are thinking the world is a better place because there are fewer airplanes.
Take your "Serious conversation" and shove it up your ass where that bullshit came from. I gave you direct facts disproving your whole airplane and boat theory and you try to counter it with circumstantial observations. That just ain't gonna fly. My evidence points directly to the fact where as you are trying to wrangle an explanation from an alleged observation. You got no foundation to stand on and as you are relying on nothing but your words I dont even have to acknowledged your position since its completely baseless.
@Soteris In the meantime, maybe research Eminent Domain lawsuits, along with the latitude of Texas, and try to actually learn something about meteorology, weather patterns, and individual and family rights when it comes to government projects between now and then.
@NYCQuestions1976 Why would I care about any of these? It has no relations to the electrical grid nor why the Texas electrical grid sucks and why USA as a whole has allowed this travesty to continue.
Well look who is president he signed a record number of executive orders to hurt and destroy this country. Water, gas, etc is all evil because of spotted owls and other animals. Yet once a community like Flint has problems with drinking water they fly there for photo ops.
because demand is higher than supply. If you "fix" price, 2 things will happen. Since there is still not enough of "it" people will start hoarding it and either selling it on a secondary market for a higher price or just keep it off the market for themselves and create a bigger shortage. You can see this has occurred with ammunition or rare bourbons, cars, etc.
The second thing that will happen is that there will be less incentive for private individuals to risk their capital to produce more of something when you make it less lucrative, thus the supply will go down or at least fail to increase as much as it otherwise would have, prolonging and exasperating the situation.
Most Helpful Opinions