That looks pretty cool.

It’s so simple…

It's my understanding (haven't researched much... yet) that Scotus effectively ruled (via the reversal of Chevron) that government bureaucrats do NOT have the authority to interpret a law passed by Congress via legislation. I believe the actual ruling reversed it back to the Judicial branch to decide HOW to interpret a law passed by congress VS the bureaucrats themselves.

The current administration has simply NOT enforced it for obvious reasons.....they want MORE regulation (as it increases their power and Influence over the citizenry) .... but that's about to change and in a big way.

IF my understanding and interpretation is correct, then my bet is you're wrong in regards to the construction of refineries....they just won't be built in CA.

A certain level of regulation is certainly warranted, but, IMOP we are long passed the point of logical regulation and have long passed into
OVER-regulation.

As for EV's, I think they are great...for the right person with the right mission.

Once again, I have a few questions....

EXACTLY where is the electrical infrastructure to charge them?

How is this electrical infrastructure to be fueled?

Where is the charging infrastructure?

How are we going to pay to upgrade the electrical grid?

How are tens of millions of folks who can't afford a home, etc and who have virtually nothing in savings going to finance an EV?

Allison, you guys NEVER answer these questions... and I've asked several times before on this very site.... so answer em.

BTW, I'm NOT against EV's at all, to a point.

However, to sell the "EV revolution" via lies, distortions, obfuscations, etc etc etc in order to FORCE some magical transformation (275 MILLION to 300 MILLION registered vehicles here in the USA) to electric isn't going to fly. It's simply a fantasy at present and well beyond the foreseeable FUTURE.... certainly 2030, 2040, 2050....pick one. .

You guys don't know that Congress had planned for the reserve to drop way before Biden?
Starting in 2015 they allowed the presidents to sell off oil from the SPR to help fund government. Yes, they are in the budget bills every year.

They could use it like Trump tried to do in 2020. Buy a lot when oil prices are very low then sell it when they get high.
It fights the price extremes. Other than that though the SPR was made to help us when we didn't produce enough for ourselves. That was back in the 70's. Its not needed as much any more.

WOW this is a new dumbest post by alley WOW

[/quote]You guys don't know that Congress had planned for the reserve to drop way before Biden?
Starting in 2015 they allowed the presidents to sell off oil from the SPR to help fund government. Yes, they are in the budget bills every year.

They could use it like Trump tried to do in 2020. Buy a lot when oil prices are very low then sell it when they get high.
It fights the price extremes. Other than that though the SPR was made to help us when we didn't produce enough for ourselves. That was back in the 70's. Its not needed as much any more. [/quote]



Once again, you REFUSE to answer a SINGLE question.....THAT speaks volumes.

BTW, I KNOW why you won't/can't answer a SINGLE question, the reason is the VERY people who pimp these narratives (all based on bs) can't answer them either. Fairy dust and good thoughts won't create some magical "green economy" nor will they solve substantive issues Allison....

You guys are now trapped in your own BS.... and those of us that can read and critically think know this....

BTW, I can't forget to mention all the "environmental hypocrisy" by the very people evoking their virtue signaling environmentalism mantra 24/7/365.... lithium mining, battery disposal, fan blades, bird kills, broken solar panels (terribly inefficient when scaled up), not to mention the thousands, and thousands of acres of defaced landscape, etc etc. The irony isn't lost on me...

One other thing, how about all the tax dollars wasted on the Solyndra's, federally funded charging stations, "infrastructure projects," etc etc etc. Billions, upon billions, upon billions of precious tax dollars wasted....

Also, I'd be remissed if I didn't add this, you cannot practice Keynesian Economics in perpetuity, period, much less to pay for something that is NOT essential to the citizenry. Nor can you afford to tax the ambition out of the citizenry, period, much less to fund a fantasy .... It simply doesn't work that way.

MOST people have to produce to feed themselves, etc as well as pay enough taxes to the treasury to fund what is essential.....and some SERIOUS energy is required to efficiently do this (and hopefully affordable). After all, the vast majority of us don't have the luxury of jumping on a G650 to zip off to Caan, or Davos.... again, the irony and hypocrisy isn't lost on me.

Hydrocarbon based energy is here to stay for many, many, many decades. It's either that or we can all lay in a pool of our own sweat attempting to sleep in the summer and burn wood by the cord all winter (speaking of deforestation) while reading by candlelight.

In other words, I guess you guys propose we simply discard all the technical innovations of the 20th century in favor of the 19th, or the 18th, or the 17th, etc. After all, the majority of these incredible innovations involve, both directly and indirectly, hydrocarbons...

https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/08/28/ERCOT-EV-Adoption-Final-Report.pdf
You are assuming a very agressive move to EV's, estimates that are not in line with anyone that I know of.
Even if they moved to selling all cars with batteries by 2030 there would still be a large number of ICE vehicles on the road for decades to come. As an example, I own 2011 and 2000 year vehicles. If they only sell EV's in 2030 then 25 years from then there will still be a number of ICE vehicles on the road. The only way that would not happen is if a battery car was cheaper to operate. As you believe thats not going to happen a lot of people will keep their dino fueled cars long after 2030.
Who knows when 275 million of them will be on the road but certainly not till 2060 or later.
The question of infrastructure is one that ERCOT has started looking at. As you can see they aren't running around screaming that there is no way to provide for it.

They estimate that in the next few years EV's will be cheaper to own than ICE. Tesla has already said they are going to start selling their battery packs next year that have a life expectancy of a million miles with 10 degradation. Many new technologies are in development and costs are continuing to drop. Who knows what will happen? Not me and I don't know why you would expect I have any answers that you could not find by looking yourself.


When you said my estimate of building new refineries, that came from the CEO of one of the largest oil companies in the world who was talking about refining infrastructure. He said he does not expect that there will ever be a new one built. They had been closing them. The last large refinery was built in 1977.

Refineries are not being built because of epa regulations and cost to built versus pay back they make money the old one were shut down due to EPA regulations not because of profitability

They need time to pay for themselves and with epa global warming nuts they won’t take the chance and most don’t want the hassle and law suits to build one
So the American public pays more for gasoline because of it

They have another scrap field just out of town on Hwy 70

WOW this is a new dumbest post by alley WOW


The day is young, just wait.

His turmoil is the fact that everyone doesn't bow down to the greatest mind on the internet, how dare anyone question his insight and wisdom?

Outside of large-scale wartime operations such as World War II, government should never try to coerce manufacturers or consumers into any type of product such as EVs. That's not the place of government. It's the place of the free market. Making up a ridiculous lie about an "existential threat" and claiming we're all going to die if we don't stop driving our Sierras, Tahoes, and Corvettes doesn't change the fundamental principle.

Let the people decide what they want.

https://www.ercot.com/files/docs/2023/08/28/ERCOT-EV-Adoption-Final-Report.pdf

Post Feb of '21 ERCOT has ZERO credibility IMOP





You are assuming a very agressive move to EV's, estimates that are not in line with anyone that I know of.

You must not be familiar with CA (sarcasm) ... they first proposed their EV MANDATE for 2030 and now they've settled on 2035.....this from the same morons that can't import enough electricity to power themselves during the summer months. Oh how they must enjoy their "brownouts" while staring at their exorbitant power bills.




Allison, they cannot EFFICIENTLY power the miniscule % of EV's CURRENTLY on the road in CA, so, I have to ask this........

EXACTLY H O W are they going to charge all these future EV's???

They're obviously planning on em traveling the streets and highways of the nirvana they claim to be creating. Good grief man, these are the same morons that have wasted BILLIONS on a yet to be completed high speed rail line (NOT even close) ... But, I bet a bunch of em have gotten very, very wealthy off that fiasco.








Even if they moved to selling all cars with batteries by 2030 there would still be a large number of ICE vehicles on the road for decades to come. As an example, I own 2011 and 2000 year vehicles. If they only sell EV's in 2030 then 25 years from then there will still be a number of ICE vehicles on the road. The only way that would not happen is if a battery car was cheaper to operate. As you believe thats not going to happen a lot of people will keep their dino fueled cars long


I believe this because it's a FACT to date.... and I don't deal in fantasy. Let's to go review their past prognostications regarding "battery technology" etc etc etc etc (as well as their climate models while we're at it) .

Allison, I TRY and deal in reality and not fantasy and, at present, their bold predictions regarding EV's haven't proven true, nor have their BS climate models of which they base their arguments.. I've read a bunch of the hacked emails from The University of East Anglia... Back in '13 IF memory serves... As a result I agree with Trump....

What REALLY galls me is this, these self same "experts" are trying to
MANDATE free citizens to purchase a vehicle they do NOT want.... and that's simply wrong.

Even worse, they're trying to mandate our ENTIRE economy to an energy source that is UNproven to scale, and might not EVER work to scale, at least in any of our lifetimes. Now THAT affects my kids and that REALLY bothers me....



Look, if an EV fits a person's mission then by all means buy one, but, NOT off the backs of the American taxpayer... that's simply wrong IMOP... VERY wrong.








Who knows when 275 million of them will be on the road but certainly not till 2060 or LATER.

Then, WHY the MANDATES???








The question of infrastructure is one that ERCOT has started looking at. As you can see they aren't running around screaming that there is no way to provide for it.

STARTED??? Bit late to the party IMOP....
.. Like I said earlier, ERCOT has ZERO credibility with me. So if you want to influence MY opinion they're a very poor choice. 25% + of Texas power tied to windmills and solar panels?? Apparently following the CA power plan right off the cliff.....









They estimate that in the next few years EV's will be cheaper to own than ICE. Tesla has already said they are going to start selling their battery packs next year that have a life expectancy of a million miles with 10 degradation. Many new technologies are in development and costs are continuing to drop. Who knows what will happen? Not me and I don't know why you would expect I have any answers that you could not find by looking yourself.

Estimate?? Who is "they?".

The second part is easy to answer... WHY do I expect you to have the answers is simple, because you've attempted to lecture me and the entirety of TFF in regards to EV's, etc on so so so so many occasions. It has appeared to me that you self anointed yourself as the expert on this site, so that's why I directed my questions to you.










When you said my estimate of building new refineries, that came from the CEO of one of the largest oil companies in the world who was talking about refining infrastructure. He said he does not expect that there will ever be a new one built. They had been closing them. The last large refinery was built in 1977.

Which CEO?? In what CONTEXT were these opinions uttered?? WHEN were they uttered... the exact point in time? You do realize that times change I assume?





Look Allison, I actually think you're a smart person and actually agree with you on occasion. I'm NOT trying to be an a-hole either. I've just grown VERY weary of being lectured to by folks that can't/won't answer simple, but VERY important questions regarding the subjects of which they lecture. IMOP, if ya' can't answer important questions then you shouldn't be lecturing....

ERCOT is the Texas agency responsible for our overseeing power production in Texas. Their board is appointed by Abbot.
If you don't find them credible who do you find credible. They will be the agency that steers Texas as far as electrical needs.

As I pointed out, how do you know these things or are you assuming that they will not be able to change?
IF you are correct I ASSUME we would have a large amount of information from anti EV people. I just don't see it, you?

The CEO's address was discussed in several threads a few years ago. It was Mike Worth, CEO of Chevron and he said that two years ago. Was he talking about recent regulatory issues? No, since that last one was built in 1977, he was talking about issues that have been around for almost 50 years.

PS, I was not lecturing to anyone. I offered my opinion.
Everyone has one.