• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The price of gas depends on ???

Haven't we gone through this before?

Average car cost in US as January, 2011 - $32,000

What was the average cost of a car in January 2011

Nissan leaf after rebate - $27,700
$27700

MIEV after rebate - $21, 265
MiEV / Mitsubishi i Electric Vehicle / Mitsubishi Motors

Are you going to make me run through the numbers again? It costs about $10,000 to subsidize one of them crapmobiles, and if the government subsidizes all cars in the US it would cost a couple trillion dollars (not including upgrades to electrical grid).
 
Do you have any clue as to how much energy is lost in charging and draining a battery and convering DC to AC and AC to DC? Nobody in their right mind would do that.

The equivalent to gas vehicles would be this:

-Bobbo buys 10 gallons of gasoline for his car

-Bobbo isn't going to drive for a week so he dumps 5 gallons of gasoline down the drain, and then re-sells 5 gallons.

laaaaame


This is the problem with both fringe sides of the arguement. The arguement that EV's are not practicle for the vast majority of people is valid. They simply aren't. They are very good first steps and for those who can make them work for them they are a great choice.

For the rest, they still have to get to work and feed the kids. There is no reason we can not address both problems at the same time.

Are you comprehending what the original disgussion was about?
 
When generated electricity is used to power a car instead of oil they obviously "compete".

You're a bot, aren't you? Only a bot could miss that.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG! Electrical generation is a totally different industry from the oil industry because CARS ARE NOT ELECTRIC! Until you come up with an electric car that doesnt suck donkey balls, they will be two totally separate industries until the end of time, so you can jerk off with your windmills and solar panels until you go blind, it still won't effect oil imports.
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! WRONG! Electrical generation is a totally different industry from the oil industry because CARS ARE NOT ELECTRIC! Until you come up with an electric car that doesnt suck donkey balls, they will be two totally separate industries until the end of time, so you can jerk off with your windmills and solar panels until you go blind, it still won't effect oil imports.
Just click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home", click-click-click, "There's no place like home", click-click-click ...
 
Last edited:
Just click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home", click-click-click, "There's no place like home", click-click-click ...

It's best not to feed stray cats. Stop feeding them; they go away.
 
Moderator's Warning:
You all need to cease the personal attacks or there will be consequences issued.
 
Are you going to make me run through the numbers again? It costs about $10,000 to subsidize one of them crapmobiles, and if the government subsidizes all cars in the US it would cost a couple trillion dollars (not including upgrades to electrical grid).

The subsidy is $7,500 and the MIEV is cheaper then the average new car price is without the rebate. The electrical grid needs to be upgraded anyway.

Hell of a lot cheaper than our military cost and wars to keep the oil flowing from the middle east. We have to look at what is the best sustainable path for our future economy. We no longer have the luxury of taking the short-term view.
 
Hell of a lot cheaper than our military cost and wars to keep the oil flowing from the middle east. We have to look at what is the best sustainable path for our future economy. We no longer have the luxury of taking the short-term view.

Yup. We're pumping much more oil domestically now, and even that isn't helping. So much for "drill baby, drill." As gas continues to climb in price, I think we'll start seeing people flock to EVs, especially when they realize EVs are cheaper to operate per mile.
 
Yup. We're pumping much more oil domestically now, and even that isn't helping. So much for "drill baby, drill." As gas continues to climb in price, I think we'll start seeing people flock to EVs, especially when they realize EVs are cheaper to operate per mile.

Or smaller, more eficient cars instead. This is already observed where the cost of petrol(gas) has increased such as Australia and Europe. I mean a dollar a liter is cheap where I come from.

But the cost of gas is going up, unless you figure out a magical process that ends oil's dominance in energy.
 
Or smaller, more eficient cars instead. This is already observed where the cost of petrol(gas) has increased such as Australia and Europe. I mean a dollar a liter is cheap where I come from.

But the cost of gas is going up, unless you figure out a magical process that ends oil's dominance in energy.

As it is, the US is burning less oil now, and more fuel-efficient cars are helping a lot with that. There is no magical process that ends oil's dominance in energy. I don't think we'll ever completely stop using oil because it has so many uses, but we need to stop using it as a primary energy source. That way we'll have it around for far longer to make plastics and other handy products.

Since there is no magical process to change over from oil, we need to understand how we use it the most in order to diagnose the problem. In the US, 70% percent of our oil consumption is in transportation. In order to reduce this consumption, we need cars that don't use petrol/gas. In my mind, that means we should use EVs (Electric Vehicles). I would choose EVs over NG cars and hydrogen cars because EVs are more flexible in their original energy source. Hydrogen cars can only use hydrogen and NG cars can only use NG. By contrast, EVs can get electricity from Nuclear, NG, Coal, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Wave or anything that creates electricity. This way, automakers can concentrate their research on one approach instead of spreading their efforts to the four winds.

So if we need to get people into EVs, we can't force them. We have to coax them into the cars. The fact that EVs are getting 3 times the miles per dollar isn't enough, people have to look good in them.

Right now, many people are looking at EVs with trepidation. For a long time EVs were nothing more than a curiosity only seen as concept cars or in Popular Mechanics. Much of that freakshow mindset remains and many struggle to consider an EV a serious car. But with gas prices climbing steadily, people are having to rethink little by little. Luckily, Tesla came around with a vision and made an EV that looked badass that also outperforms and makes Maseratis shuffle away with their tail between their legs. Tesla made a car that looked like a car. I'm not impressed with car makers that make EVs that look like a space-age toaster. No one wants that. So when Nissan turned out the Leaf and Chevy produced the reverse-hybrid Volt, each of which look like a car, we suddenly see people buying with enthusiasm. Not only can people save on fuel costs, they can flip the bird at the freaks in the middle-east, and look good doing it.

There's still much more work to be done. The cost needs to come down and the range needs to be extended. And even then everyone in America isn't going to rush out and buy an EV just because it's there. It will take time to get all those gas-burners off the road. This won't happen overnight. So there is no magic solution, only hard work and determination.
 
The subsidy is $7,500 and the MIEV

Wrong! That's the subsidy on the US side, not including the subsidy on the Japanese side, and it also doesn't include all the favoratism these crapmobiles get from government in attempting to get waivers and approvals and such.
 
sometimes you make no sense, sometimes just a little....the 200mpg carburetor existed only in the minds of the tin foil hat crowd, people who insisted that the car companies were conspiring with the oil companies.....
what does right wing have to do with anything here?

Has a lot to do with the right wing, cause the right wing has came up more than once with things that didn't exist especialy between 2000 and 2008.
Like WMDS in Iraq, "mission accomplished", "a strong American economy" "stay the course", victory for American economy is just around the corner" and the oldies, "THE MUSHROOM CLOUD" THE SMOKING GUN", "THE DUCT TAPE DEFENCE"??

Rightwingers don't wear foil hats or any hats their heads are too big. lol,lol:peace
 
oh shut up......

You might try reading a post before responding to one.
I did not post the post you responded to.
You claim to reserch everything but you don't even know which poster posted what ??:peace
 
As it is, the US is burning less oil now, and more fuel-efficient cars are helping a lot with that. There is no magical process that ends oil's dominance in energy. I don't think we'll ever completely stop using oil because it has so many uses, but we need to stop using it as a primary energy source. That way we'll have it around for far longer to make plastics and other handy products.

Since there is no magical process to change over from oil, we need to understand how we use it the most in order to diagnose the problem. In the US, 70% percent of our oil consumption is in transportation. In order to reduce this consumption, we need cars that don't use petrol/gas. In my mind, that means we should use EVs (Electric Vehicles). I would choose EVs over NG cars and hydrogen cars because EVs are more flexible in their original energy source. Hydrogen cars can only use hydrogen and NG cars can only use NG. By contrast, EVs can get electricity from Nuclear, NG, Coal, Hydro, Wind, Solar, Wave or anything that creates electricity. This way, automakers can concentrate their research on one approach instead of spreading their efforts to the four winds.

So if we need to get people into EVs, we can't force them. We have to coax them into the cars. The fact that EVs are getting 3 times the miles per dollar isn't enough, people have to look good in them.

Right now, many people are looking at EVs with trepidation. For a long time EVs were nothing more than a curiosity only seen as concept cars or in Popular Mechanics. Much of that freakshow mindset remains and many struggle to consider an EV a serious car. But with gas prices climbing steadily, people are having to rethink little by little. Luckily, Tesla came around with a vision and made an EV that looked badass that also outperforms and makes Maseratis shuffle away with their tail between their legs. Tesla made a car that looked like a car. I'm not
impressed with car makers that make EVs that look like a space-age toaster. No one wants that. So when Nissan turned out the Leaf and Chevy produced the reverse-hybrid Volt, each of which look like a car, we suddenly see people buying with enthusiasm. Not only can people save on fuel costs, they can flip the bird at the freaks in the middle-east, and look good doing it.

There's still much more work to be done. The cost needs to come down and the range needs to be extended. And even then everyone in America isn't going to rush out and buy an EV just because it's there. It will take time to get all those gas-burners off the road. This won't happen overnight. So there is no magic solution, only hard work and determination.

There is much work to be done this is fact.

However to have 1 alternitive fuel in America which is definately what the auto companies want , because they don't want to put up 15 differant factories to make 15 differant cars for 15 differant fuels.

I say 1 major alternitive fuel the rest would be treated like the hybrid car of today the majority of cars today use gas.

The problem with alternitive fuel, at least 1 problem is how many ideas for alternitive fuel have been eliminated.

We have idea for natural gas, hydrogen, electric, wind, solar, even nuclear, and others.

One of the problems we face is to eliminate at least some of these ideas.

This isn't the first time America faced this problem of what to do a movie documentary called "THE BAND PLAYED ON" talks about idecision during the aids epidemic crises.

If that's to contraversal, Lincoln in 1862 was said to have grown tired of General McClellans oganized plans and indecisions to fight or withdraw on the battlefield , so he hired Grant, Grant was not big on organization but when it came to battle he knew what to do and when.

The discussion of alternitive fuel or regualar fuel for that matter has differant people saying differant things , on one hand "there's plenty of oil left no need to rush" then how many fifferant veiws of alternitive fuels to oil are there.

In my humble opinion I say pick an alternitive fuel to oil "just one" ONE THAT CAN BE MADE AMERICA USEING AMERICAN MATERIALS, work on it , apply all resorces and money to one if it works use it just the thought of telling OPECK TO GET ****ED WOULD BE WORTH IT.

I have my preferences of alternitive fuel just like anybody else but as the saying goes "YA CAN'T PLEASE EVERYBODY", and right now America is only pleasing Opeck.:peace
 
Last edited:
Wrong! That's the subsidy on the US side, not including the subsidy on the Japanese side, and it also doesn't include all the favoratism these crapmobiles get from government in attempting to get waivers and approvals and such.

Who cares about the subsidies on the Japanese side, if that is even true.

The fact is, they can be purchased without the US tax credit, if you prefer, for less than the average new car price in the US, as has been shown.
 
Who cares about the subsidies on the Japanese side, if that is even true.

The purpose of the Japanese subsidy is to get market share, if they ever get it, they will drop the subsidy which means the ecoterrorists will have to up the subsidy on this side to equal gasoline cars. DUUUUH
 
The purpose of the Japanese subsidy is to get market share, if they ever get it, they will drop the subsidy which means the ecoterrorists will have to up the subsidy on this side to equal gasoline cars. DUUUUH

LOL!!! Must be a slow con, we bought our first hybrid in 2000.
 
Gentlemen, I remind the posters of the name of this thread "The Price of Oil Depends On ..?"
Below is from a Yahoo news feed, it is not my list.

Eight Reasons Gas Will Hit $5 This Year

Two warring trends are pushing and pulling gas prices. On the one hand, Americans now drive less than at any time in the past 11 years. On the other hand, gasoline and oil inventories are at very low levels around the world, and traders believe that supply will tighten significantly. The fact that Americans drive much less will not offset an interruption of supply from the Middle East, a decision by refineries to charge more to turn oil into gasoline, or higher demand from emerging economies like China and India.



1. Strait of Hormuz

About 20% of the crude oil produced in the world is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has threatened to shut down shipping traffic through the Strait. At its narrowest, the passage is 30 miles wide, so there is a realistic case that a conflict could close it. Iran has already been isolated as a trade partner by U.S. and EU sanctions. The regime in the country has made a number of threats about what it might do if its “national interests” were threatened. If Iran follows through with its threats, the period the passage is closed could be very brief if the U.S. Navy, which has a carrier group in the region, moved to reopen the lane. But it is not clear that the American government would make that decision without the open support of allies or the United Nations. A closure of the passage, or any escalation that would make a closure more likely, will drive oil prices higher — and by extension, gasoline prices.

2. Iran

Iran contributes to a second problem in terms of global oil supply well beyond that of its ability to interrupt supply. Because of the embargo against the nation due to nuclear weapons violations, the U.S. has pressured large oil importers such as Japan to act to isolate Iran by cutting their imports. This puts Japan in a position in which it has to tap even tighter global supply. Japan apparently has agreed to cut its Iranian crude imports by 20%. But as the world’s third largest oil importer, Japan indeed will have to get its oil somewhere other than Iran — which will put more pressure on current production.

3. Refiners Likely to Raise Prices

Most of the oil refined on the east coast of the U.S. is Brent crude, a type of oil produced from the North Sea. The price of Brent — more than $124 a barrel — is almost $16 higher than the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, the amount most people read about in the media. But because Brent has replaced WTI as the global price benchmark, U.S. refiners set prices for gasoline and other products as if Brent were the only grade of crude used. That allows refiners with access to cheaper WTI to make larger profits.

However, when the prices converge, as happened in the final two months of 2011, WTI refiners lose their edge — and their hefty profits. “Refiners were losing money in November and December. You can only lose money for so long,” John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, recently said. Many large refineries are owned by public companies that do not have much appetite for posting ongoing losses. To avoid losses, refiners will have to increase gasoline prices.

4. Other Geopolitical Risks

Iran does not present the only geopolitical challenge to oil production. In Nigeria, which is the 14th largest producer of oil in the world, Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram has continued to attack Christian areas of the country. The Nigerian Army has reacted by attacking Islamists. Militants have continued to attack pipelines, apparently in a move to disrupt the government.

Meanwhile, there are concerns about supply even from Venezuela. Venezuela is the world’s 11th largest producer of crude. The regime there has been fairly stable under the 13-year reign of Hugo Chavez. But Chavez is due for a second cancer surgery later this month. The Miami Herald recently wrote that “some analysts question his [Chavez] ability to hold onto the presidency through the current election cycle.”


Other parts of the Middle East and Africa are also in turmoil. Analysts recently mentioned Bahrain, Libya, Iraq, Nigeria and Yemen as political flashpoints. “The world faces oil supply risks from a multitude of sources, not only in the Middle East but also in Africa. In our view, not since the late 1970s/early 1980s has there been such a serious threat to oil supply,” Soozhana Choi, Deutsche Bank’s head of Asia commodities research, said in a note to clients recently. All these flashpoints translate to further concerns about oil supply. And when oil supplies are tight, the price of oil — and gasoline — increases.

5. European Union Recession

For now, Greece has been bailed out again – a move that should buoy confidence in the region and encourage demand for oil. Even with the Greek bailout, however, the eurozone is not out of the woods as nations continue to implement austerity measures to protect against the risk of default on sovereign debt.

While some experts believe the risk of defaults in the region is overblown, several economies in the eurozone continue to be in trouble. According to a recent European Commission forecast, the eurozone GDP will contract 0.3 percent, driven in part by deep recessions in several southen EU nations, including Spain and Portugal.

Either way, deepening financial and economic trouble in Europe would drop demand for oil there. However, if leaders in the region can settle on mechanisms to protect nations with financial problems from default, national budgets will not be cut to extraordinarily low levels — levels that would otherwise kill both consumer demand and business demand for oil.


6. U.S. Economic Recovery

An improved U.S. economy means higher oil prices. U.S. GDP, employment and even housing have all staged unexpected improvements in recent months. Many economists now peg a 2012 GDP increase at more than 2%. The new White House budget assumes growth of 3% by 2013. An average of more than 100,000 jobs has been created in each of the past six months. And an extension of payroll tax cuts through the end of this year may further aid the employment recovery. An extension of unemployment benefits means that hundreds of thousands of American who would have no income, will have at least enough to consume basic goods and services. The argument that Americans now drive less is not a powerful one for gas and oil demand when a healthy economy also means more consumption of oil for business, petrochemicals and jet fuel. Demand for oil-based products across the entire economy will pick up with any recovery.

7. It Is Almost Summer

In the U.S., summer vacation driving has historically boosted demand for gasoline. Over the past three or so years, however, that boost has been small, if present at all. In 2011, U.S. traffic volume decreased year-over-year in every month except January and February. But that was last year. So long as the U.S. economy continues to improve, more drivers will be on the road this summer.

8. Supply Risk

In December 2011, OPEC members produced nearly 31 million barrels a day, cutting the cartel’s spare capacity capability from 3.18 million barrels per day to 2.85 million. Saudi Arabia accounts for 2.15 million of those daily barrels of spare capacity.

Whether this data is accurate is arguable. What is not arguable is that starting to pump the spare capacity will take time, which will not be very helpful in the event that the Strait of Hormuz is closed or some other geopolitical risk is realized.

Then there is Russia, the world’s first or second largest producer, depending on which day you look at the data. The OECD is counting on Russian production to make up for some of the short supplies and to grow by 1.4% to 10.72 million barrels a day in 2012. Russia grew its production by 1.2% in 2011. An additional gain of 17% in 2012 could signify that the OECD is hoping that Russian production can grow even more. There is no guarantee that Russia will deliver.

Supply from Canada, the U.S., Australia and Brazil is expected to rise in 2012, though North Sea production is expected to fall. The OECD estimates global demand in 2012 of 90 million barrels a day and global supply essentially equal to projected supply. Nothing about that state of affairs should lead anyone to a conclusion that prices will fall.

How long do Americans have to wait to see what foreign nations do before than plan a budget or take a drive?:peace
 
Well laddy dah.

Define "hybrid".

Our first hybrid was a Honda Insight. It has two motors, one electric and the other ICE. The batteries are self charged during the normal operation of the car and it gets 70 mpg. It also qualified for a energy tax credit. It was the best car I've owned in my lifetime.

Then grandchildren happened and my wife wanted a bigger car, so we sold it and bought a Toyota Prius, which is not nearly as cool as the Insight was and it only gets 50 mpg, but that is still way above average milage, and still less dependence on middle east oil.

In a few more years we will upgrade to an EV and say goodbye to being dependent on the middle east altogether for our transportation.
 
Back
Top Bottom