National Average Price of Gasoline Hits an All-Time High

[MG1968]

Have you looked at a modern car engine lately? Maybe an older engine with a first generation throttle body you might be able to, but I doubt too many people would possess the skills needed.

The Cubans kept tri-5 Chevys running for 60+ years. I’ll grant you the technical hurdles, but in the end spark+fuel=bang and bang means movement.

 

[VolStrom]

The ecm in most cars can be bypassed and made operational without much trouble.

Lol! Yeah, sure they can be bypassed without much trouble. With no distributor, how are you going to fire the spark plugs. With no intake manifold, how are you going to get fuel into it? You're either reliving the 60's or blowing smoke for entertainment purposes.

 

[hog88]

Okay, so let's break this down a bit.

First, your comment "No one in their right mind would say we should stop banks from making loans for carts and buggies or cars so we can improve airplanes. Which is the insane argument you’re attempting to make."

#1 I am not making any argument of the sort. I am saying that moving away from fossil fuels is a good idea, worthy of discussion. That's all.

Ok. Make that argument, why is that a good idea?

 

[VolStrom]

The Cubans kept tri-5 Chevys running for 60+ years. I’ll grant you the technical hurdles, but in the end spark+fuel=bang and bang means movement.

Once again, modern cars don't have distributors, so where does the spark come from? Modern cars don't have a common intake for anything other than air, so where does the fuel come from?

 

[Vol8188]

Okay, so let's break this down a bit.

First, your comment "No one in their right mind would say we should stop banks from making loans for carts and buggies or cars so we can improve airplanes. Which is the insane argument you’re attempting to make."

#1 I am not making any argument of the sort. I am saying that moving away from fossil fuels is a good idea, worthy of discussion. That's all.

#2 You are misquoting the resolution. It is to prevent loans to businesses developing oil and fossil fuels, not stop loans for cars.

Second, and related, its just a bunch of activists who bought some shares in all the banks and float these proposals at annual meetings to call attention to the issue:

EXCLUSIVE Shareholder group pressures U.S. banks to drop fossil fuels faster


Don't get your panties in a wad, its not going to pass. Its just advocacy.

1. This was your literal response to BOA voting on defunding fossil fuels "BUT if we were not dependent on fossil fuels like we are wouldn't that be a good thing for national security long term? ". So yes, you are making the argument that private banks should not invest in fossil fuels.

2. This (the bold) may be too dumb to even respond to. I was making an analogy. You brought planes into this. I'm stating economically they (airplanes) still suck. And that just like how we didn't defund horses for cars or cars for airplanes, we also should not defund fossil fuels for alternatives.

3. Those activists are your people and they are no small minority. It's the AOC's of the world who want to force banks and 401ks away from fossil fuels, and it harms our national security and our wealth. Along with the security and wealth of the world. Even in our current state of energy crisis we have liberals (about 100 in congress) openly calling for the end of all federal drilling.

 

[lawgator1]

Ok. Make that argument, why is that a good idea?

1) Fossil fuels are a finite resource.

2) Fossil fuels cause pollution worldwide and we cannot always influence that as we might like.

3) Even if we are not importing those fuels at a given point in time we are affected by price increases worldwide.

4) And its even worse when at that point in time we are importing.

 

[85SugarVol]

Okay, so let's break this down a bit.

First, your comment "No one in their right mind would say we should stop banks from making loans for carts and buggies or cars so we can improve airplanes. Which is the insane argument you’re attempting to make."

#1 I am not making any argument of the sort. I am saying that moving away from fossil fuels is a good idea, worthy of discussion. That's all.

#2 You are misquoting the resolution. It is to prevent loans to businesses developing oil and fossil fuels, not stop loans for cars.

Second, and related, its just a bunch of activists who bought some shares in all the banks and float these proposals at annual meetings to call attention to the issue:

EXCLUSIVE Shareholder group pressures U.S. banks to drop fossil fuels faster


Don't get your panties in a wad, its not going to pass. Its just advocacy.

ESG is going to be yet another monster incapable of being slayed. But it’s just advocacy.

 

[lawgator1]

1. This was your literal response to BOA voting on defunding fossil fuels "BUT if we were not dependent on fossil fuels like we are wouldn't that be a good thing for national security long term? ". So yes, you are making the argument that private banks should not invest in fossil fuels.

2. This (the bold) may be too dumb to even respond to. I was making an analogy. You brought planes into this. I'm stating economically they (airplanes) still suck. And that just like how we didn't defund horses for cars or cars for airplanes, we also should not defund fossil fuels for alternatives.

3. Those activists are your people and they are no small minority. It's the AOC's of the world who want to force banks and 401ks away from fossil fuels, and it harms our national security and our wealth. Along with the security and wealth of the world. Even in our current state of energy crisis we have liberals (about 100 in congress) openly calling for the end of all federal drilling.

He said I was claiming don't give loans for cars.

I didn't say that. The resolution doesn't say that. No one is saying that.

 

[hog88]

Lol! Yeah, sure they can be bypassed without much trouble. With no distributor, how are you going to fire the spark plugs. With no intake manifold, how are you going to get fuel into it? You're either reliving the 60's or blowing smoke for entertainment purposes.

It's easier to convert from fuel injection to carbureted than the other way around. Use a low pressure mechanical fuel pump (easily scrounged) and distributors are not hard to find.

 

[VolStrom]

It's easier to convert from fuel injection to carbureted than the other way around. Use a low pressure mechanical fuel pump (easily scrounged) and distributors are not hard to find.

Have you ever looked at an engine made after 1985?

 

[Vol8188]

1) Fossil fuels are a finite resource.

2) Fossil fuels cause pollution worldwide and we cannot always influence that as we might like.

3) Even if we are not importing those fuels at a given point in time we are affected by price increases worldwide.

4) And its even worse when at that point in time we are importing.

3. If by affected by price increases worldwide, you mean “made wealthier by” than yes. If we are net exporters of an in demand product, that’s a great position to be in.

 

[Vol8188]

He said I was claiming don't give loans for cars.

I didn't say that. The resolution doesn't say that. No one is saying that.

I’m so lost. Who is “he”? You’re saying someone other than me claimed you mentioned car loans?

If you mean me, I was comparing the stupidity of saying “maybe banks shouldn’t give loans to fossil fuels” as a means to advance alternative energy (the thing you’re saying), to the idea of not giving loans to cars so we can advance the airline industry (a comparable and equally dumb idea).

 

[hog88]

1) Fossil fuels are a finite resource.

2) Fossil fuels cause pollution worldwide and we cannot always influence that as we might like.

3) Even if we are not importing those fuels at a given point in time we are affected by price increases worldwide.

4) And its even worse when at that point in time we are importing.

We have enough NG, and crude to last 100s of more years. Our proved NG reserves would last another 90-100 years alone, no telling what we have underground that hasn't been discovered. Solar and wind both cause different types of pollution/waste and are much less reliable. So there is no need to force a conversion to EVs at this time.

 

[hog88]

Have you ever looked at an engine made after 1985?

Yes, many of them. I agree that they are complicated birds nests but once you strip away the wiring harnesses they are still internal combustion engines and we know how to make them run without computers.

 

[Vol8188]

I’ve never understood the “fossil fuels are finite” scare tactic.

Okay? So are all of the components of solar and electric vehicles. What does that change?

Use them while we can because they’re and effective and lower worldwide poverty.

 

[VolStrom]

Yes, many of them. I agree that they are complicated birds nests but once you strip away the wiring harnesses they are still internal combustion engines and we know how to make them run without computers.

So where would place a distributor at? Does any hole in the block work? You're not fooling me buddy, you don't know sh!t about current engines and how they operate.

 

[Vol8188]

Have you ever looked at an engine made after 1985?

If your argument is that modern cars also require rare minerals/metals like electric vehicles, given electric vehicles require more of them, what’s your point?

“These finite resources are in modern cars too!”….sure, but to a lesser degree. So how is using more of them an advantage?

 

[hog88]

So where would place a distributor at? Does any hole in the block work? You're not fooling me buddy, you don't know sh!t about current engines and how they operate.

WTF said you have to mount the distributor on the block?

So old buddy, tell us the major differences between modern engines and pre-ecm. Do they not use fuel, air and a spark?

 

[VolStrom]

If your argument is that modern cars also require rare minerals/metals like electric vehicles, given electric vehicles require more of them, what’s your point?

“These finite resources are in modern cars too!”….sure, but to a lesser degree. So how is using more of them an advantage?

What are you talking about? Modern cars have multiple computers, an EMP blast would fry them all and without said computers the car is never going to run, and you can't just slap a carburetor and a distributor in it and make it run like hogg claims.

 

[MG1968]

What are you talking about? Modern cars have multiple computers, an EMP blast would fry them all and without said computers the car is never going to run, and you can't just slap a carburetor and a distributor in it and make it run like hogg claims.

But it’s infinitely easier than getting a Tesla to run in a post-apocalyptic world.

 

[Vol8188]

What are you talking about? Modern cars have multiple computers, an EMP blast would fry them all and without said computers the car is never going to run, and you can't just slap a carburetor and a distributor in it and make it run like hogg claims.

The point is an EV has all of that plus more. So if those things are difficult to find from a national security standpoint, relying on cars that require even more of those things is not a positive. Correct?

 

[Vol8188]

But it’s infinitely easier than getting a Tesla to run in a post-apocalyptic world.

Zombie hamster wheel on top=problem solved

 

[VolStrom]

WTF said you have to mount the distributor on the block?

So old buddy, tell us the major differences between modern engines and pre-ecm. Do they not use fuel, air and a spark?

They did away with distributors when the modern ecm's came into play. The ecm's use crank position and cam position sensors to fire individual coil packs for each cylinder, hence no need for a distributor and no reason to mold a place into the block for one of them. Most modern engines use a resin molded intake manifold and fuel injection is either directly injected into a cylinder or a fuel rail similar to an old school diesel, therefor there is no place to mount a carburetor.

 

[hog88]

What are you talking about? Modern cars have multiple computers, an EMP blast would fry them all and without said computers the car is never going to run, and you can't just slap a carburetor and a distributor in it and make it run like hogg claims.

Correct, you have to change the fuel pump and make/modify the manifold which can be done.

 

[VolStrom]

The point is an EV has all of that plus more. So if those things are difficult to find from a national security standpoint, relying on cars that require even more of those things is not a positive. Correct?

My point is unless you have an old school diesel or an old school gas engine, you aren't making anything run electric or ice.