The Ukraine Crisis

[houndawg]

Romney isn’t wrong

We really should be trying to think about how to whip their Russian asses back to Moscow. His position is righteous

But the position that we should not precipitate WWIII is also righteous. Romney is no more a shitbag than Reagan was when he challenged the Soviet Union on all fronts- the unified Dem talking point during those days was “don’t piss off the Russians it might cause war! “

Yet again Dems and Republicans have flipflopped


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Meh. We've turned our heads on all kinds of killings when we are the ones doing it, not really buying all the hype about the killing in Ukraine.

Again, all the angst from the political elite is that their money laundering schemes in Ukraine are going to dry up when Putin finally wrestles control from Ukraine away from the West. Pretty sure I read that one of Romney's kids has one of those sweetheart deals like Hunter does over there.

At this point all I care about is US troops not being sent in. For those that have read up on the End Times, you know how this war is going to end.

Trut so pure, BUT, there is a difference, to the surviviors any way, between collateral damage and deliberatly targeting civilian dwelling with air and artillery. That shit is right up there with trump pardonning that scumbag navy dude that knifed bound 15 year old captives

[Ibanez]

It's a lot of wasted money, time and effort - I agree 100%.

Supply and Demand, current inventories, strength of the dollar, expectations of near-future production, the season (summer driving months, for example) are key drivers to the prices we pay. Is investment of a potential pipeline weighted that heavy? How's the construction of a pipeline today that wouldn't be complete for years impact the current pricing with such impact? Those are sincere questions, btw, not snarky ones.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7X14000443

Not much. But both Clinton and Obama said the exact same thing and if we built the pipelines and made the investments back then that they shutdown, we probably would not be having this conversation. The problem with that question is that it is asked every single time and they keep kicking the can down the road (which is by design).

there are multiple pipelines (both Natural gas and petroleum) that are either held up partially finished or killed after a large investment. The continued hostility to certain types infrastructure based on particular brand of beliefs are most certainly being factored into the consumer side of prices.

My question back to you is how far are you willing to kick the can down the road? Because eventually the market (it is already doing that) going to factor in aging infrastructure and then it will not matter how much one drills if you cannot transport it or finance it (see the pressure being brought by activist shareholders).

Having it already built is one thing. But saying our problems are because a pipeline was never built doesn't make much sense to me especially when people harken back to the good ole days of gas prices before that pipeline was ever conceived. Republicans are giving Biden way too much credit, as if he's some omnipotent force. Democrats do the same with Republican presidents and it's intellectually dishonest.

I'm of the opinion that we should be investing and working towards better, cleaner, cheaper fuels. We should not be curtailing the current methods and resources while we build the next generation - that's just stupid. The Democraps are foolish to think we can just turn off the spigot and expect everything to work out just fine. Quit making it difficult to produce what we need today while prepare for tomorrow.


Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying presidential policies don't have an impact. That's outrageous. I'm simply stating that if you are to take an unemotional, objective view of the data, geopolitical landscape, and economies that there is so more than 1 EO being the culprit.

[houndawg]

Not much. But both Clinton and Obama said the exact same thing and if we built the pipelines and made the investments back then that they shutdown, we probably would not be having this conversation. The problem with that question is that it is asked every single time and they keep kicking the can down the road (which is by design).

there are multiple pipelines (both Natural gas and petroleum) that are either held up partially finished or killed after a large investment. The continued hostility to certain types infrastructure based on particular brand of beliefs are most certainly being factored into the consumer side of prices.

My question back to you is how far are you willing to kick the can down the road? Because eventually the market (it is already doing that) going to factor in aging infrastructure and then it will not matter how much one drills if you cannot transport it or finance it (see the pressure being brought by activist shareholders).

Having it already built is one thing. But saying our problems are because a pipeline was never built doesn't make much sense to me especially when people harken back to the good ole days of gas prices before that pipeline was ever conceived. Republicans are giving Biden way too much credit, as if he's some omnipotent force. Democrats do the same with Republican presidents and it's intellectually dishonest.

I'm of the opinion that we should be investing and working towards better, cleaner, cheaper fuels. We should not be curtailing the current methods and resources while we build the next generation - that's just stupid. The Democraps are foolish to think we can just turn off the spigot and expect everything to work out just fine. Quit making it difficult to produce what we need today while prepare for tomorrow.


Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying presidential policies don't have an impact. That's outrageous. I'm simply stating that if you are to take an unemotional, objective view of the data, geopolitical landscape, and economies that there is so more than 1 EO being the culprit.

We'll get better, cleaner, cheaper fuels after they've sold every barrel of oil they can pump

[Ibanez]

Lots, otherwise we would have seen real condemnation over the Uyghurs, no?

Well I know they provide lots of products, and lots of cheap products, but is there anything THEY provide we can’t get somewhere else? Or here at home, albeit at a more expensive price?

A lot of computer chips.

[Ibanez]

Having it already built is one thing. But saying our problems are because a pipeline was never built doesn't make much sense to me especially when people harken back to the good ole days of gas prices before that pipeline was ever conceived. Republicans are giving Biden way too much credit, as if he's some omnipotent force. Democrats do the same with Republican presidents and it's intellectually dishonest.

I'm of the opinion that we should be investing and working towards better, cleaner, cheaper fuels. We should not be curtailing the current methods and resources while we build the next generation - that's just stupid. The Democraps are foolish to think we can just turn off the spigot and expect everything to work out just fine. Quit making it difficult to produce what we need today while prepare for tomorrow.


Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying presidential policies don't have an impact. That's outrageous. I'm simply stating that if you are to take an unemotional, objective view of the data, geopolitical landscape, and economies that there is so more than 1 EO being the culprit.

We'll get better, cleaner, cheaper fuels after they've sold every barrel of oil they can pump

It all has to be gradual.


And more nuclear power. Democrats have been wrong on this issue for too long.

[houndawg]

We'll get better, cleaner, cheaper fuels after they've sold every barrel of oil they can pump

It all has to be gradual.


And more nuclear power. Democrats have been wrong on this issue for too long.

Smaller decentralized reactors are what we should be bridging the gap with while we develop a worldwide grid upon which the sun always shines. I've got some land for a demonstration project...

[Winterborn]

Having it already built is one thing. But saying our problems are because a pipeline was never built doesn't make much sense to me especially when people harken back to the good ole days of gas prices before that pipeline was ever conceived. Republicans are giving Biden way too much credit, as if he's some omnipotent force. Democrats do the same with Republican presidents and it's intellectually dishonest.

I'm of the opinion that we should be investing and working towards better, cleaner, cheaper fuels. We should not be curtailing the current methods and resources while we build the next generation - that's just stupid. The Democraps are foolish to think we can just turn off the spigot and expect everything to work out just fine. Quit making it difficult to produce what we need today while prepare for tomorrow.


Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying presidential policies don't have an impact. That's outrageous. I'm simply stating that if you are to take an unemotional, objective view of the data, geopolitical landscape, and economies that there is so more than 1 EO being the culprit.

The pipeline is an easy focal point as one can say "here is evidence of x". Is the only reason, no, but Biden's EO in his first 24 hours of being in office set the tone going forward. Speculation on Russia/Ukraine also have something to do with it, so does the anticipation of "normalcy" from covid and the increase in consumption from that.

So yes, it is not just from a pipeline being built, but that type of mentality towards new infrastructure while demand is rising does not help. I am all for alternative power sources but do not kill the economy while doing that research (which is what you stated in your last paragraph). Some of it also is frustration at the short term thinking in this area by Democrats (which has been going on since Clinton). It is very funny that people that are against petroleum and vote against it policy wise, then complain about Big Oil not doing enough to prevent a rise in prices.

[SeattleGriz]

With the talk of tactical nukes. Here is NukeMap. Pick your spot and yield. Wouldn't doubt the NSA created this site!

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

[Ibanez]

Having it already built is one thing. But saying our problems are because a pipeline was never built doesn't make much sense to me especially when people harken back to the good ole days of gas prices before that pipeline was ever conceived. Republicans are giving Biden way too much credit, as if he's some omnipotent force. Democrats do the same with Republican presidents and it's intellectually dishonest.

I'm of the opinion that we should be investing and working towards better, cleaner, cheaper fuels. We should not be curtailing the current methods and resources while we build the next generation - that's just stupid. The Democraps are foolish to think we can just turn off the spigot and expect everything to work out just fine. Quit making it difficult to produce what we need today while prepare for tomorrow.


Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying presidential policies don't have an impact. That's outrageous. I'm simply stating that if you are to take an unemotional, objective view of the data, geopolitical landscape, and economies that there is so more than 1 EO being the culprit.

The pipeline is an easy focal point as one can say "here is evidence of x". Is the only reason, no, but Biden's EO in his first 24 hours of being in office set the tone going forward. Speculation on Russia/Ukraine also have something to do with it, so does the anticipation of "normalcy" from covid and the increase in consumption from that.

So yes, it is not just from a pipeline being built, but that type of mentality towards new infrastructure while demand is rising does not help. I am all for alternative power sources but do not kill the economy while doing that research (which is what you stated in your last paragraph). Some of it also is frustration at the short term thinking in this area by Democrats (which has been going on since Clinton). It is very funny that people that are against petroleum and vote against it policy wise, then complain about Big Oil not doing enough to prevent a rise in prices.

Right, I get that. That's why I don't deny that presidential policies (or even presence) do obviously have an impact. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

[kalm]

We'll get better, cleaner, cheaper fuels after they've sold every barrel of oil they can pump

It all has to be gradual.


And more nuclear power. Democrats have been wrong on this issue for too long.

In general. I agree with you on the topic, the wildcard being the severity and urgency of climate change.

Energy technology seems similar to residential development. Months turn into years, years turn into decades with external forces like environmental regulations/approval and competition (other land development, housing market, and growth management in the way for new developments and traditional energy, consumer familiarity and existing M&O in the case of new energy).

[kalm]

Romney isn’t wrong

We really should be trying to think about how to whip their Russian asses back to Moscow. His position is righteous

But the position that we should not precipitate WWIII is also righteous. Romney is no more a shitbag than Reagan was when he challenged the Soviet Union on all fronts- the unified Dem talking point during those days was “don’t piss off the Russians it might cause war! “

Yet again Dems and Republicans have flipflopped


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Meh. We've turned our heads on all kinds of killings when we are the ones doing it, not really buying all the hype about the killing in Ukraine.

Again, all the angst from the political elite is that their money laundering schemes in Ukraine are going to dry up when Putin finally wrestles control from Ukraine away from the West. Pretty sure I read that one of Romney's kids has one of those sweetheart deals like Hunter does over there.

At this point all I care about is US troops not being sent in. For those that have read up on the End Times, you know how this war is going to end.

I haven’t read up on the end times. How is this war going to end?

[kalm]

Creative propaganda about Paris being under attack.

[Winterborn]

It all has to be gradual.


And more nuclear power. Democrats have been wrong on this issue for too long.

In general. I agree with you on the topic, the wildcard being the severity and urgency of climate change.

Energy technology seems similar to residential development. Months turn into years, years turn into decades with external forces like environmental regulations/approval and competition (other land development, housing market, and growth management in the way for new developments and traditional energy, consumer familiarity and existing M&O in the case of new energy).

I disagree. The money to be made in new Energy tech is insane and that alone is pushing innovation at breakneck speeds. Just because there is not anything strong commercially yet, does not mean they are taking their sweet time. Inventing a whole new storage technology is not something one can wave your hand over and it happens. Physics is Physics, no matter who passes the legislation decrying otherwise.

[Winterborn]

With the talk of tactical nukes. Here is NukeMap. Pick your spot and yield. Wouldn't doubt the NSA created this site!

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Klam beat you to it posting that.

[HI54UNI]

The problem with cancelling the pipeline is the decision impacts companies' decisions to make investments. All the money spent to date is gone, wasted. Companies look at decisions by the Biden admin and aren't going to make investments when they know it is either a dead end or could be gone with the next decision by Biden. The lack of planned future investment is being priced into the oil market.

It's a lot of wasted money, time and effort - I agree 100%.

Supply and Demand, current inventories, strength of the dollar, expectations of near-future production, the season (summer driving months, for example) are key drivers to the prices we pay. Is investment of a potential pipeline weighted that heavy? How's the construction of a pipeline today that wouldn't be complete for years impact the current pricing with such impact? Those are sincere questions, btw, not snarky ones.

They only respond to higher or lower oil prices by increasing or decreasing planned investments in new production capacity. Whether or not these investments are made has little impact on current oil supplies or prices, but may have a large impact on future oil supplies and prices.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7X14000443

Investment plans all play a role in the market price. The pipeline is one small piece. The ability to get leases and drilling permits, threats to "end fracking", push for electric vehicles, push for more renewable energy subsidies all have a role too. If you've got money do you invest it in leases and permits when you know the government might screw you tomorrow? All of that uncertainty is priced into the market.

[kalm]

In general. I agree with you on the topic, the wildcard being the severity and urgency of climate change.

Energy technology seems similar to residential development. Months turn into years, years turn into decades with external forces like environmental regulations/approval and competition (other land development, housing market, and growth management in the way for new developments and traditional energy, consumer familiarity and existing M&O in the case of new energy).

I disagree. The money to be made in new Energy tech is insane and that alone is pushing innovation at breakneck speeds. Just because there is not anything strong commercially yet, does not mean they are taking their sweet time. Inventing a whole new storage technology is not something one can wave your hand over and it happens. Physics is Physics, no matter who passes the legislation decrying otherwise.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but haven’t we had some of this tech and/or ability around for decades sitting on a shelf?

I mean I’m no engineer, but CAFE standards and public transit for the hoi poloi alone could be used more effectively. It’s not as if they haven’t elsewhere.

[kalm]

Some Scottish dude on social: seems legit.

“Sorry, USA, but I'm going to have to rant my ass off at you (not anyone I know personally, but just in general). There's a lunatic in the Kremlin threatening a global thermonuclear war and yet 95% of posts from the US today are bitching about the price of gasoline. Would it be too much to ask of you lot to look beyond the end of your own street for five minutes and acquire even a miniscule sense of perspective?

I've had the calculator out, and you lot don't know when you're well off. The average US gasoline price today is $4.06 per gallon. Boo frickin' hoo. What a hell of a lot of you don't realise is that $4.06 per gallon is substantially less than almost every country in the world payed for gasoline / petrol BEFORE Putin invaded Ukraine. US gasoline is dirt cheap because you pay virtually no tax on it. The same gallon of gasoline would cost you $8.69 at a petrol station in Scotland today, but we're not moaning about it because we kinda figure that the survival of global democracy is slightly more important right now. By the way, buckle up, bitches, because you're going to be seeing prices like that (and worse) before we're anywhere near the end of this little excursion to the foothills of World War III.

And another thing. It's not "all Joe Biden's fault". You really want to know why even a slight increase in the price of gas has you hurting so badly? Maybe it might have something to do with the USA having monetised every single activity necessary for human survival short of breathing, and I'm sure at least one corporate laboratory has been working on a way to make that happen for years. If you weren't screwed to the wall on a daily basis by a combination of peasant wages and rampant consumer greed, you might have the necessary financial resources to absorb sudden monetary shocks like this, but 42 years of unrestrained capitalism has strip-mined every last cent from the US working class and handed it to billionaires. To make matters worse, your refusal to pay taxes in order to invest in services like public transportation, universal health-care and a workable welfare system means that even the slightest increase in prices creates an unsurvivable financial crisis for those least able to afford it. Maybe if you hadn't spent half a century or more believing that paying taxes for public infrastructure is socialism, you wouldn't be hurting so badly when a few cents goes on a gallon of gas.

I'm sorry, USA. I love you dearly, but you have to stop watching Tucker Carlson, pull your heads out of your collective assholes and look at the bigger picture for once. Sorry / not sorry.“

[Winterborn]

I disagree. The money to be made in new Energy tech is insane and that alone is pushing innovation at breakneck speeds. Just because there is not anything strong commercially yet, does not mean they are taking their sweet time. Inventing a whole new storage technology is not something one can wave your hand over and it happens. Physics is Physics, no matter who passes the legislation decrying otherwise.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but haven’t we had some of this tech and/or ability around for decades sitting on a shelf?

I mean I’m no engineer, but CAFE standards and public transit for the hoi poloi alone could be used more effectively. It’s not as if they haven’t elsewhere.

Depends on what you mean by "Tech" (you are going to have to be more specific). Tesla has good battery tech not because the physical battery has changed, it is because the software has advanced and that is where they really shine. Li-ion battery is old tech (mid 80's), there has been some tweaking of the chemical makeup to try and limit amounts of some of the high cost components but that is pretty much it.

For a direct replacement of our current IC (internal combustion) engines, Li-Ion is NOT going to do it PERIOD. And that is not my opinion, that is Physics. The energy density is not even close to gasoline (it is about 100 times less) and until we have a direct energy density replacement, no amount of legislation or subsidies is going to change that. Sure there are prototype batteries out there that have close to that energy density but they use even rarer materials or are more combustible that current battery tech. Do not get me wrong, electric vehicles will be the future, but not with anything we currently know as a "battery". It will have to be a completely new adaption of either capacitors (which has never been done on this size and the physics/manufacturing really gets wonky at the sizes we are talking about) or something else that hasn't been thought of yet. And that is only for consumer vehicles. The industrial/commercial side is even more complex due to working loads.

Public transit works when population densities are above a certain point. In the cities that are, it is great (when administered correctly), most of America does not fit that bill. CAFE standards have driven lighter vehicles (most cost effective way to meet them is drop weight). It has encouraged metallurgical advances and brought different alloys into common vehicle production. But on the other hand it has made vehicles less recyclable due to those same alloys (many of which cannot be recyclable as they loose their material properties). Steel is not steel. Throw in the mixture of aluminum, carbon fiber, 100 different alloys of steel in one vehicle and an old 70/80/90's vehicle from a pure energy, cradle to grave standpoint is more recyclable and efficient. Granted all that tech has made them safer (crumple zones, etc.) but CAFE is not all a bed of roses, there are tradeoffs.

All the above is common knowledge in the industry but it doesn't fit the narrative (of both sides) so the media/politicians ignores it. It is a "decent" stepping stone, but that is about it. And branding it "green" is one of the best marketing gimmicks of this century.

[Winterborn]

Some Scottish dude on social: seems legit.

“Sorry, USA, but I'm going to have to rant my ass off at you (not anyone I know personally, but just in general). There's a lunatic in the Kremlin threatening a global thermonuclear war and yet 95% of posts from the US today are bitching about the price of gasoline. Would it be too much to ask of you lot to look beyond the end of your own street for five minutes and acquire even a miniscule sense of perspective?

I've had the calculator out, and you lot don't know when you're well off. The average US gasoline price today is $4.06 per gallon. Boo frickin' hoo. What a hell of a lot of you don't realise is that $4.06 per gallon is substantially less than almost every country in the world payed for gasoline / petrol BEFORE Putin invaded Ukraine. US gasoline is dirt cheap because you pay virtually no tax on it. The same gallon of gasoline would cost you $8.69 at a petrol station in Scotland today, but we're not moaning about it because we kinda figure that the survival of global democracy is slightly more important right now. By the way, buckle up, bitches, because you're going to be seeing prices like that (and worse) before we're anywhere near the end of this little excursion to the foothills of World War III.

And another thing. It's not "all Joe Biden's fault". You really want to know why even a slight increase in the price of gas has you hurting so badly? Maybe it might have something to do with the USA having monetised every single activity necessary for human survival short of breathing, and I'm sure at least one corporate laboratory has been working on a way to make that happen for years. If you weren't screwed to the wall on a daily basis by a combination of peasant wages and rampant consumer greed, you might have the necessary financial resources to absorb sudden monetary shocks like this, but 42 years of unrestrained capitalism has strip-mined every last cent from the US working class and handed it to billionaires. To make matters worse, your refusal to pay taxes in order to invest in services like public transportation, universal health-care and a workable welfare system means that even the slightest increase in prices creates an unsurvivable financial crisis for those least able to afford it. Maybe if you hadn't spent half a century or more believing that paying taxes for public infrastructure is socialism, you wouldn't be hurting so badly when a few cents goes on a gallon of gas.

I'm sorry, USA. I love you dearly, but you have to stop watching Tucker Carlson, pull your heads out of your collective assholes and look at the bigger picture for once. Sorry / not sorry.“

You would think so.

He should start reading the legislation coming out of Brussles before he starts typing.

[AZGrizFan]

Some Scottish dude on social: seems legit.

“Sorry, USA, but I'm going to have to rant my ass off at you (not anyone I know personally, but just in general). There's a lunatic in the Kremlin threatening a global thermonuclear war and yet 95% of posts from the US today are bitching about the price of gasoline. Would it be too much to ask of you lot to look beyond the end of your own street for five minutes and acquire even a miniscule sense of perspective?

I've had the calculator out, and you lot don't know when you're well off. The average US gasoline price today is $4.06 per gallon. Boo frickin' hoo. What a hell of a lot of you don't realise is that $4.06 per gallon is substantially less than almost every country in the world payed for gasoline / petrol BEFORE Putin invaded Ukraine. US gasoline is dirt cheap because you pay virtually no tax on it. The same gallon of gasoline would cost you $8.69 at a petrol station in Scotland today, but we're not moaning about it because we kinda figure that the survival of global democracy is slightly more important right now. By the way, buckle up, bitches, because you're going to be seeing prices like that (and worse) before we're anywhere near the end of this little excursion to the foothills of World War III.

He could have stopped at the bolded sentence. It's what's been wrong with this country for about 50 years.

[Winterborn]

Some Scottish dude on social: seems legit.

He could have stopped at the bolded sentence. It's what's been wrong with this country for about 50 years.

It is about the only thing that author had right. He is as uninformed as most voters here in the U.S..

[Ibanez]

It's a lot of wasted money, time and effort - I agree 100%.

Supply and Demand, current inventories, strength of the dollar, expectations of near-future production, the season (summer driving months, for example) are key drivers to the prices we pay. Is investment of a potential pipeline weighted that heavy? How's the construction of a pipeline today that wouldn't be complete for years impact the current pricing with such impact? Those are sincere questions, btw, not snarky ones.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7X14000443

Investment plans all play a role in the market price. The pipeline is one small piece. The ability to get leases and drilling permits, threats to "end fracking", push for electric vehicles, push for more renewable energy subsidies all have a role too. If you've got money do you invest it in leases and permits when you know the government might screw you tomorrow? All of that uncertainty is priced into the market.

I honed in on keystone XL because that's the talking point from people like BDK and anyone who is glued to Fox News. I've heard it from friends and read it on this board - gas is up b/c KXL isn't constructed and a EO paused permits and leases pending further review.

Uncertainty is one of those market forces and boy you are right - it plays a huge role. But we saw a huge number of permits granted last year and it does look as if they're tapering off (the approval rate, that is).

Although the Biden administration last year approved more permits to drill oil and gas wells on public lands than the Trump administration in its first year, Interior Department data shows approvals have been more modest for months.

In fact, the Bureau of Land Management in January approved just 95 permits for oil and natural gas wells across federal lands in the United States, an 85 percent drop from a zenith of 643 issued last April, according to a review of permitting data by E&E News.

Many environmental groups have been frustrated with the rapid pace of approvals, which carved into the number of backlogged permits President Biden inherited by nearly 1,000 by year’s end, seeing it as a betrayal of Biden’s pledges to confront climate change.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/drillin ... der-biden/

[kalm]

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but haven’t we had some of this tech and/or ability around for decades sitting on a shelf?

I mean I’m no engineer, but CAFE standards and public transit for the hoi poloi alone could be used more effectively. It’s not as if they haven’t elsewhere.

Depends on what you mean by "Tech" (you are going to have to be more specific). Tesla has good battery tech not because the physical battery has changed, it is because the software has advanced and that is where they really shine. Li-ion battery is old tech (mid 80's), there has been some tweaking of the chemical makeup to try and limit amounts of some of the high cost components but that is pretty much it.

For a direct replacement of our current IC (internal combustion) engines, Li-Ion is NOT going to do it PERIOD. And that is not my opinion, that is Physics. The energy density is not even close to gasoline (it is about 100 times less) and until we have a direct energy density replacement, no amount of legislation or subsidies is going to change that. Sure there are prototype batteries out there that have close to that energy density but they use even rarer materials or are more combustible that current battery tech. Do not get me wrong, electric vehicles will be the future, but not with anything we currently know as a "battery". It will have to be a completely new adaption of either capacitors (which has never been done on this size and the physics/manufacturing really gets wonky at the sizes we are talking about) or something else that hasn't been thought of yet. And that is only for consumer vehicles. The industrial/commercial side is even more complex due to working loads.

Public transit works when population densities are above a certain point. In the cities that are, it is great (when administered correctly), most of America does not fit that bill. CAFE standards have driven lighter vehicles (most cost effective way to meet them is drop weight). It has encouraged metallurgical advances and brought different alloys into common vehicle production. But on the other hand it has made vehicles less recyclable due to those same alloys (many of which cannot be recyclable as they loose their material properties). Steel is not steel. Throw in the mixture of aluminum, carbon fiber, 100 different alloys of steel in one vehicle and an old 70/80/90's vehicle from a pure energy, cradle to grave standpoint is more recyclable and efficient. Granted all that tech has made them safer (crumple zones, etc.) but CAFE is not all a bed of roses, there are tradeoffs.

All the above is common knowledge in the industry but it doesn't fit the narrative (of both sides) so the media/politicians ignores it. It is a "decent" stepping stone, but that is about it. And branding it "green" is one of the best marketing gimmicks of this century.

Tough to argue and you are the expert.

I’m viewing this as a conversion to cleaner energy not the pie in the sky instant replacement. Everything is a trade off but we have the ability right now to improve both technologically and culturally. (Heck the cultural change has already been happening for awhile but it can still go faster). Impediments are money associated with political will and systemic corruption.

[Winterborn]

Tough to argue and you are the expert.

I’m viewing this as a conversion to cleaner energy not the pie in the sky instant replacement. Everything is a trade off but we have the ability right now to improve both technologically and culturally. (Heck the cultural change has already been happening for awhile but it can still go faster). Impediments are money associated with political will and systemic corruption.

Then allow incentives and tax breaks for R&D (more than there already are) and try to push the good side of technology (innovation) rather than punish the behavior (oil consumption). Right now it is a push against fuel but what about the other petroleum products? We need other replacements (74% used for fuel, rest is other uses in a barrel of oil) for those products.

My thoughts are use more of a carrot than stick approach and let markets/consumers work on it. I am all for the cleaner engine emissions and letting the cost of that drive consumers towards electric vehicles (because it will). Offer me a viable alternative to my current vehicle and I will consider it. I will not even consider an EV right now because of their winter performance (lack thereof).

[Ibanez]

This war is going embarrassingly bad for Putin. On paper, Russia should have blown through Ukraine and its defenses with ease. The shock and awe of their blitzkrieg was supposed to have brought on a quick victory. But 3 weeks later there are 1000s of dead Russians, including many generals, they've had logistical problems from the beginning, troop morale is in the pits, the Russian people are voicing their opposition, sanctions have destroyed the Russian economy, a vast majority of the industrialized worlds has joined the side of the Ukraine and they're ever increasing the likelihood of a bitter and embarrassing acquiesce to Ukraine.

I truly believe Putin is feeling more and more backed into a corner. I don't see the man having the courage to cease hostilities and retreat so that leaves 2 options:
1) Start another World War and unleash the nukes
or;
2) Suicide


I may be a bit dramatic but I was called dramatic for saying the Russians would eventually invade Ukraine.