So we are in agreement...The CBO is not a valid authority of future costs/prices/etc... their predictions are valid for a very, very short time.
"Can" be valid for only a very very short time--just like your's, mine, Fisher Investments, and anyone else's that basis a forecast or prediction on current real data instead of seat of the pants emotion and wishful thinking.
BTW, your statement makes about as much sense as this scenario:
An obese, unhealthy eating, smoking, drinking, tv-watching patient is told by his doctor that he will probably develop diabetes if he continues with his current lifestyle.... does the patient say to the doctor, "do you WANT me to be diabetic?"
You would have to ask the patient what he says--I'm not clairvoyant, but I can understand you saying that, considering FL did in fact direct that question at you--he quoted your previous statements in the same post he asked the question in, and you chose to simply dodge a very direct and simple question until pressed on the subject.
Oh, I believe you are more intelligent than that--you get it, but choose not to elaborate. Why not just come out and say so?
As for your question to me: Yes, I "think" oil will edge up over the next 20 yrs at a slightly higher rate than it has in the last 10 years. However, I will ALSO emphatically and unquestionably say that I WANT them to.
You see how easy that is? You ask a question--I answer it directly and as honestly as I can.
You may now ask another.
IP: Logged
09:51 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27110 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
"Can" be valid for only a very very short time--just like your's, mine, Fisher Investments, and anyone else's that basis a forecast or prediction on current real data instead of seat of the pants emotion and wishful thinking.
Where did "emotion and wishful thinking" come from? I am just saying that the CBO predictions are short-term. The CBO predicts based on data.... of course they do, I don't argue that at all. Their predictions just don't last, and that is for many reasons. What is wrong with admitting that?
The CBO makes the huge assumption that oil prices will not rise. How likely do you really think that is? And how smart would it be to base national energy policy based on this assumption?
It seems like common sense to pursue some alternatives, in the likely event that fuel prices do go up. Gasoline adds up really quick at $5/gal and that is still extremely low by global standards.
IP: Logged
09:54 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27110 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
The CBO makes the huge assumption that oil prices will not rise. How likely do you really think that is? And how smart would it be to base national energy policy based on this assumption?
It seems like common sense to pursue some alternatives, in the likely event that fuel prices do go up. Gasoline adds up really quick at $5/gal and that is still extremely low by global standards.
Unless there is some incredible breakthrough in battery technology, we will need oil for quite some time.
The price of electricity WILL be going up. Here in California, the liberals have passed global warming legislation that will cause electricity costs to go up. Coal plants are being shut down, and there is a nonstop effort by the EPA to tax CO2. Also, electric cars will need a special tax to make up for the lost gas tax revenue to maintain roads.
Electric cars won't save you money over gasoline.
IP: Logged
10:13 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Ill never say never to an electric car, but dead against them the way they are now. Id pay $30,000 for a stylish looking car, with a minimum 100,000 mile warranty, that can get 300 miles on a single charge and no gas engine at all on board. I also like the idea of being able to put a substantial charge in one in an hour or so. 60+ miles for a charge while you eat dinner is good. Of course, the downside is you still have to pay for the power to charge it unless you have your own solar or windmill generator.
IP: Logged
12:02 PM
PFF
System Bot
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
Unless there is some incredible breakthrough in battery technology, we will need oil for quite some time.
Definitely true...Never disputed this.
quote
The price of electricity WILL be going up. Here in California, the liberals have passed global warming legislation that will cause electricity costs to go up. Coal plants are being shut down, and there is a nonstop effort by the EPA to tax CO2. Also, electric cars will need a special tax to make up for the lost gas tax revenue to maintain roads.
Electricity has been rising but far slower than gasoline has, and historically is far less volatile. In most states, its far cheaper to operate an electric vehicle, per mile, compared to a gasoline powered vehicle.
While I lack hard data to prove it, I'd bet that shedding reliance on unstable foreign nations for our motor fuel would be more beneficial (and save more tax dollars) than the revenue "lost" by not purchasing gasoline.
Battery technology is still the laggard but there is a lot of market pressure now to refine and improve battery tech.
Where did "emotion and wishful thinking" come from? I am just saying that the CBO predictions are short-term. The CBO predicts based on data.... of course they do, I don't argue that at all. Their predictions just don't last, and that is for many reasons. What is wrong with admitting that?
I don't dispute it at all. I simply say that CBO's predictions are as accurate as anyone else's that makes a prediction based on real world data instead of wishfull thinking and emothion such as we have all seen from some investment prospectuses. No prediction anywhere will last unless all parameters the prediction is based upon remain constant--and they don't, which means CBO's predictions are just as accurate as any one elses and no more and no less fallible than anyone elses. Any inference that a CBO prediction doesn't hold water must also be extended to all other prediction as well and any inference that a CBO (or any other) prediction is untrustworthy simply because it may not hold true is simply a circular argument stating the obvious. "it may rain tomorrow--unless it doesn't"
The CBO makes the huge assumption that oil prices will not rise. How likely do you really think that is? And how smart would it be to base national energy policy based on this assumption?
It isn't an assumption. They know the price of oil is volatile, but they, like any entity that is congressionally tasked with making a prediction has to base their end product on real data available, (according to what we KNOW) and not on speculatative "what iffs?" . Any moron can do that what if thing and most do.
IP: Logged
12:57 PM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
I don't dispute it at all. I simply say that CBO's predictions are as accurate as anyone else's that makes a prediction based on real world data instead of wishfull thinking and emothion such as we have all seen from some investment prospectuses. No prediction anywhere will last unless all parameters the prediction is based upon remain constant--and they don't, which means CBO's predictions are just as accurate as any one elses and no more and no less fallible than anyone elses. Any inference that a CBO prediction doesn't hold water must also be extended to all other prediction as well and any inference that a CBO (or any other) prediction is untrustworthy simply because it may not hold true is simply a circular argument stating the obvious. "it may rain tomorrow--unless it doesn't"
And that is my point.. The CBO offers predictions, not absolutes, then applying that to things like the electric car value seems pointless. What would the CBO have said about computers (back in the 80s)? "Current predictions show that processor speed will increase by 1% each year.... and central processing will become the norm, in 10 years."???
eh... CBO data needs to be taken with a BIG grain of salt.... like any other prediction and there is nothing "circular" about stating that as a reminder.
IP: Logged
01:21 PM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
It isn't an assumption. They know the price of oil is volatile, but they, like any entity that is congressionally tasked with making a prediction has to base their end product on real data available, (according to what we KNOW) and not on speculatative "what iffs?" . Any moron can do that what if thing and most do.
I'd hope policymakers would have a reasonable "worst case scenario" in mind when deciding to pursue electric vehicles, or alternative fuels in general.
A report like this means little because, as you say, oil prices are volatile, and the report makes the assumption that oil prices will not change.
IP: Logged
01:39 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
They could keep electricity prices down or even lower if people would buck up and start building new nuclear powerplants. Everyone wants cheap power, but dont want them in their town. Id have no problem with one a mile from me. Theres only so much coal, river and oil to power the current plants...so there going to have to go to an alternative sometime, and not too late. Wind and solar powerplants dont work for the masses, unless they make whole states into them.
And that is my point.. The CBO offers predictions, not absolutes, then applying that to things like the electric car value seems pointless. What would the CBO have said about computers (back in the 80s)? "Current predictions show that processor speed will increase by 1% each year.... and central processing will become the norm, in 10 years."???
eh... CBO data needs to be taken with a BIG grain of salt.... like any other prediction and there is nothing "circular" about stating that as a reminder.
As long as you ALSO accept that the predictions regarding better batterys, longer life batterys, and lower prices, much higher fossil fuel prices are nothing less than assumptions, predictions, non-absolutes, and mere speculation as well. You can't demonize one entity's data based predition without demonizing all of them--giving CBO just as much credit for believeability as anything coming out of the auto industry or the elec vehicle crowd. Unless of course those good folks are basing their predictions on hopes instead of data.
IP: Logged
04:15 PM
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7583 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
Nope--not bad, but "most people" aren't going to be willing or able to pay $57,400 MSRP for the base model or $92,400 for the performance version, or $95,200 for the Sig version or $105,400 MSRP for the Signature/Performance version when you can buy a nice Focus or Festiva type conventional vehicle for around $20k and that saved $37,000 will buy a LOT of gasoline..
^^^^^ This ^^^^^
Electric cars are really only a 'feel good' car - making you feel like you are doing good to the enviroment. Although one can argue that you really are not helping it much, just redirecting the damage. The cars are still produced the same way gasoline cars are, so no saving there. Then one can argue is the damaged caused by the manufacturing of the battery, but gasoline cars also require a battery, however they are smaller - so in that case a win for the gasoline cars since there is less of an impact on mining materials. Maintenance costs, probably about the same given the same mileage driven - just different. Actually in my experience with electric power vehicles the contacts need replacing a fairly regular base and the motors require rebuilds fairly often as well (no real experience with the new AC motors). Of course there is a issue of polluting the planet, but don't be fooled there unless you are charging your car via solar/wind/natural gas/hydro means of power generation. Coal fired plants are far from being enviromentally friendly and nuclear - well that has it's own unique problems of waste disposal which I really won't consider it being 'friendly'.
To me what hurts the electric car is: high inital cost and limited range (there may not necessary be a charge station either at your destination).
In my books the $37,000 difference in the above example could be better spent as I would never spend that much on gas over the life of the car (unless the price of gas was really, really high).
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 09-26-2012).]
Electric cars are really only a 'feel good' car - making you feel like you are doing good to the enviroment. Although one can argue that you really are not helping it much, just redirecting the damage. The cars are still produced the same way gasoline cars are, so no saving there. Then one can argue is the damaged caused by the manufacturing of the battery, but gasoline cars also require a battery, however they are smaller - so in that case a win for the gasoline cars since there is less of an impact on mining materials. Maintenance costs, probably about the same given the same mileage driven - just different. Actually in my experience with electric power vehicles the contacts need replacing a fairly regular base and the motors require rebuilds fairly often as well (no real experience with the new AC motors). Of course there is a issue of polluting the planet, but don't be fooled there unless you are charging your car via solar/wind/natural gas/hydro means of power generation. Coal fired plants are far from being enviromentally friendly and nuclear - well that has it's own unique problems of waste disposal which I really won't consider it being 'friendly'.
To me what hurts the electric car is: high inital cost and limited range (there may not necessary be a charge station either at your destination).
In my books the $37,000 difference in the above example could be better spent as I would never spend that much on gas over the life of the car (unless the price of gas was really, really high).
You need to dam some more rivers to make more hydro electricity. There's no environmental impact that way. Really!
IP: Logged
11:12 PM
PFF
System Bot
Sep 27th, 2012
fierobear Member
Posts: 27110 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
I'm confused. Please explain how the current administration, (or any US administration), can change the price of oil in the global marketplace.
By shutting down deep water drilling in the gulf of Mexico, and stopping the Keystone Pipeline. Both have a DIRECT effect on the price of oil, and therefore, gasoline in the United States.
quote
And if they could change the price of oil, why would they increase the price of oil which as we all know adversely effects the US economy ?
Well, it depends on how deeply you think the conspiracy goes.
If you are a "globalist", and think the United States should be knocked down a few pegs, so it will be "more equal" with the rest of the world?
If you want to create a crisis, so you can take advantage of the situation and consolidate power.
If you believe in global warming and green energy to the point that you will make current energy sources more expensive, so that solar panels and electric cars achieve parity, cost-wise?
Take your pick.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 09-27-2012).]
IP: Logged
02:07 AM
jaskispyder Member
Posts: 21510 From: Northern MI Registered: Jun 2002
US was exporting gas back in Feb/March. And the reason.... "Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says."
US was exporting gas back in Feb/March. And the reason.... "Gasoline supplies are being exported to the highest bidder, says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service. "It's a world market," he says."
dont forget we use wealth redistribution to keep the price of gas/oil down oil subsidies are just using taxpayer dollars form everyone to keep fuel prices down for those who use fuel
that could be adjusted to raise/lower fuel costs - tho - I doubt anyone would really try that. in fact - not sure junk like this should even be done? in fact - I would think the US Navy should charge oil tankers rent or something of that nature. or maybe charge them by use?
it is just amazing how many $$$ get used for oil indirectly. would anyone gives a crap WTF happens in the middle east otherwise? it would be white noise like the violence in Africa. happens constantly - but - does anyone give a crap? well, maybe a few. there is WAY MORE to the cost of oil/gas than the $$$/Gallon. that is probably the cheapest of the costs. I would expect that at least 75% of the nat'l debt is linked to oil.
if oil had to go thru "the market" on its own, it would FAIL. we'd be electric already.
IP: Logged
10:14 AM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
As long as you ALSO accept that the predictions regarding better batterys, longer life batterys, and lower prices, much higher fossil fuel prices are nothing less than assumptions, predictions, non-absolutes, and mere speculation as well. You can't demonize one entity's data based predition without demonizing all of them--giving CBO just as much credit for believeability as anything coming out of the auto industry or the elec vehicle crowd. Unless of course those good folks are basing their predictions on hopes instead of data.
Oh, come on.
You admit oil is volatile, and suggest it may go UP or DOWN. Do you also think that battery tech is equally likely to improve or regress?
It's not even the same comparison. It's a natural progression of technology that batteries will become incrementally cheaper and more effective, how virtually everything technological improves over time. As opposed to a finite, high demand natural resource that is subject to political pressure and global economics.
quote
fierobear: By shutting down deep water drilling in the gulf of Mexico, and stopping the Keystone Pipeline. Both have a DIRECT effect on the price of oil, and therefore, gasoline in the United States.
Gasoline and oil are both global commodities now. What % of global production does the Keystone Pipeline and Gulf represent? Hint: Not much.
Not saying it would be a BAD thing to increase oil production since it would reduce our trade deficit, but it would have a marginal impact on global fuel prices.
quote
fierobear: My understanding of why was that our demand was way down, and we had the excess refinery capacity.
It doesn't matter. The United States is a price taker for oil, just like every other nation on the planet. If we didn't have excess capacity, we'd be importing the oil, at the same price.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 09-27-2012).]
IP: Logged
01:20 PM
Dec 3rd, 2013
PePe-LePu_For_2 Member
Posts: 284 From: San Ramon, CA, USA Registered: Jun 2005
A car with 300 mile range would be much more practical. Problem is, that 300 mile version will cost you a minimum of $69,900. Gonna need a much lower price to get widespread consumer interest.
Hang in there Bear, Some 2x to 3x better (and yet cheaper) batteries are coming soon. Three years or less I'm predicting.
On the status of the electric car: Tesla can't keep up with demand because of the battery supply, and the second generation Volt is $10,000 cheaper than the first one.
Tesla and Panasonic recently reached an agreement to increase battery production
