>strategic oil reserve is about to experience permanent catastrophic damage from being drained too low
Apparently salt domes have a life span, you pump water in to remove oil. The water wears at the domes and removes more salt creating a larger cavern. It's not that we pumped out so much oil lately, it's because we were pumping out little bits over the last 5 decades constantly wearing at the domes. They were created at the time to only be used in a catastrophic situation, not when ever you want to control the price of oil......
Either way, you are correct in that their life has come to an end, we will require more expensive above ground storage going forward or we can electrify.
And the other party was (among other faults) amazingly complacent as major landlords colluded at scale - via RealPage software - to send apartment rents skyrocketing.
If you look at the timeline, and the demographics of voters who lost enthusiasm for Biden between 2020 and 2024, it looks like a whole lotta the Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck decided to vote their pocketbooks.
Vs. back in '72, when Biden was just getting elected to the Senate, Pres. Nixon was a noisy anti-inflation zealot. (Not saying Nixon was sane, nor legal...) Since Nixon was re-elected with >60% of the popular vote - in spite of negatives like the Vietnam War - I'd say that the Dem's failure to follow a so-obvious winning reelection strategy was exactly what handed Trump the opportunity to make the decisions which you so strongly dislike.
What is it "inflation adjusted" or is that cyclical because inflation itself measures/is a measure of the cost of diesel (which bleeds into the cost of goods and services)?
It seems one way Iran fights the US asymmetrically is by harming the Federal financial picture with endlessly higher rates + borrowing costs. If this keeps happening month-after-month, year-after-year, we're really going to feel the squeeze.
Treasury has already tried to reassure markets and failed
For now. They are well aware of the long picture. They know how long they can risk doing without maintenance, and will do it eventually. They are also well aware that EVs are coming and high fuel prices hurt them long term because people will switch and not come back.
Someone else suggested they see $85/bbl as the ideal price. I don't know if that is true, but it seems reasonable.
EV is committing irrespectively of what refineries are doing at this point. The latest Chinese models with a reasonable range are cheaper to manufacture than ICE cars. So I can see why refineries want to get as much money as possible now before the massive switch to EV.
This is a really complex optimization problem, but slowing EV adoption, which low gas prices help, is likely the better course for a few more years. Eventually just gouge the petrol users left is the most profit, but I don't think that has been reached yet.
Personally I think the hanlon's razor approach is an intellectually lazy thought terminating cliche that provides cover to people/groups who do act with malice.
A US administration sympathetic to Russia stands to benefit from higher oil prices.
>This was the desired effect though, as higher oil prices means more profit for US based oil producers. I'm sure that will trickle down any time now.
That's giving the Trump administration too much credit. Before the war there were pieces about how oil companies were doing worse under Trump than under Biden[1]. Of course, you could argue that the Iran war is Trump finally responding to oil companies, but given that it only started more than a year after he took power, it really makes you wonder whether Trump is bumbling along, or playing some 5d chess with the global oil market. On the flip side there's plenty of evidence that he doesn't want high oil prices, for instance lifting sanctions on Iranian and Russian oil.
I don’t know why anyone gives Trump credit for things like this. He (like all elected officials for the past few decades) is a figurehead and has been manipulated by careerists at every step, who themselves are beholden to the lobbyists that grease the wheels of government.
It's not that complicated with him. He literally gets on the phone with CEOs and takes orders directly. But that only sticks until another competing interest talks to him.
Even if they don't say that, it is the obvious thing to do. Elections are coming up in a few months. Already because of midterm elections the democrats were expected to gain seats (this is something you could predict the day after the 2024 elections before Trump took office again). The democrats are not so stupid as to not yell about gasoline prices in their advertisements - this is a big deal to a lot of people. Iran has a lot of power to affect gas prices (something they have long known) and so their best chance to harm Trump is to ensure the democrats win as many seats as possible.
The real question is what happens after the elections. There is a lot happening in Iran and nobody can figure out which factions really are gaining power (we know who is the public voice of power, but not if they have real power)
and I'm not sure how much they need to do to drive up costs. During Covid the economy has started showing signs that the incentives are wrong and Trump 2 showed you can just buy government favours and tilt the field to your advantage.
Covid was early 2020, he lost too. Dems can just match it with 5K given approval comes from congress not EO. The congress will flip Nov 4. And congressional witch trials will be devastating in Jan 2027. If recession happens by then, congress can revoke SS protection after 2028. By then given worldwide mess and maybe AI havoc, I doubt we thinking about him more than our walmart cart. Sigh, a future that I am not looking forward to.
Remember, the grandiose leader said the Iran special military operation will be over after the midterm elections. Unfortunately he meant the 2034 midterms.
The Ukraine angle is another cheap shot by CBS (state sponsored news). Prices are rising because of Trumps adventurism in the the ME and now that the Houthies will likely control the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, world markets are reacting.
There is nothing stopping US refineries from producing more diesel, you can use both sweet and sour, this is speculators squeezing the markets.
What a great time it should be to electrify heavy transportation. If they can do it in mining and construction, why can't transportation...
A lot of the Ukraine strikes affect Russia only. Russia has changed to import a lot more, and exporting less (I do not know the balance - most refining countries both import and export fuel from different locations), but the vast majority of the oil refined in Russia was used in Russia and they are unable to replace it.
Ukraine strikes to impact the world price. However most of the impact is in Russia, elsewhere the effect is less. Iran is larger effect because the middle east as a more significant share of global oil. (both have an effect, but Iran is larger)
Russia hasn't exported products in over a month now. If Diesel prices hit $6 today, it's purely because 6 months after the US president started his war on Iran, Iranian forces in Yemen have routed the Saudis and cut off the second of two SA oil export routes, damaging a vital pipeline in the process, sending crude to $100 and beyond.
Russia stopped exporting diesel due to Ukrainian strikes. That badly hurt Turkey and to lesser extent Brazil. And Brazil started to get diesel from US allowing US companies to make a lot of profit. So Ukrainian strikes clearly affect global prices.
But then it also makes Chinese EV including trucks extremely attractive replacement. So China making a profit as well.
Check historical prices of diesel. Diesel has been up since April 2026 when Trump launched his war against Iran regardless of what Ukraine has been doing. This is the same story with weapons, the Trump administrations blames Ukraine for their lack of Weapons to fight Iran, if you look at the weapons they are using to fight Iran, 95% of them were never given to Ukraine.
Ultra-low-sulfur diesel became mandated in 2006 as the only type that was legal to sell for road use. That requires extra refining to remove the naturally-occuring sulfur from the fuel which is why the cost went up.
I thought I heard once it was because diesel might be more polluting than regular gas and thus has extra taxes on it? I could be entirely wrong though.
If the demand for other fuels increases, the cost of diesel can be indirectly affected.
Jet fuel and diesel fuel come from similar parts of the barrel. Refineries can largely choose what kind of fuel they produce for a given unit of input. One barrel doesn't always split into the same fractions. There is configuration involved.
I have only a passing interest in this but, basically, different oil fields have different percentages of different weight hydrocarbons. The oil can be refined with catalytic cracking to make more gas / kerosene / whatever. As I understand it, we're using "lighter" oil and we're focusing on making gas, so the percentage diesel in the crack spread is lower. So, there's less diesel coming out of the refineries.
This started, I believe when fracking became a major thing (the late 2000s), because shale oils tends to have less heavy hydrocarbons then the old wells.
The market values Diesel more. Diesel fuel has more energy per gallon, and a diesel engine as run in the real world is more energy efficient (in a lab gasoline is slightly more energy efficient, but the difference is slight and the conditions needed to make this happen are rare in the real world). Thus those who use a lot of fuel - things like freight and earth moving normally use diesel engines. These are also applications that have less elasticity, so when price goes up they don't use less. (when gas prices go up a few people drive less - or buy more fuel efficient cars, people running diesel already are buying the best fuel efficiency they can for their needs).
While diesel is less refined, the difference isn't much. These days both are heavily refined products, and the cost to refine gasoline isn't very much per gallon.
The real answer: supply/demand is the key factor in the price you pay. Cost to create/build a product generally sets a floor on the price you pay: a business that isn't making money will stop making the product (loss leaders exist, but not a factor here).
That sounds like a great theory but is not consistent with the observation that until not too long ago, diesel used to be cheaper. How do you explain that?
That's the problem with hindsight theories, especially if only using a limit horizon into the past.
Supply demand. As refineries got better at cracking fuel they made more and more gasoline since that is what the market wanted. However to change the mix they need to make a long term bet on it isn't worth it to build/rebuild their expensive refinery to produce a different mix. A refinery only has a small amount of ability to change what comes out, they can't make more diesel without a major rebuild and that isn't worth it.
In North America, it's fracked oil making up for declines in conventional crude oil production.
Over the past 20-ish years fracked oil, which is mostly too light to cost effectively refine into diesel but makes nice gasoline, has made up most of the increase in oil production. At the same time, conventional crude oil production has been slowly declining. Conventional crude is quite easy to refine into diesel. Heavy/sour crude replacements are more expensive to refine into diesel because more work is needed; also preexisting refineries need refitting to support it.
The net result is that diesel production hasn't kept up with the wider percentage increase in oil-based fuels and refinement is more expensive because it's a choice between cheaper oil which requires more work and costly refits, or less-available and therefore more expensive base oil. Thusly diesel is more expensive due to cost of production and reduced relative supply.
Diesel increased in price because truck drivers couldn't afford not to drive their truck. The cartel as well as the distributors are extracting all the value they can at every step. That is why diesel has increased so much.
Lockheed would still agree that it's good for them - replacing all those $4 million Patriot rockets expended in the Middle East to shoot down Shahed drones that are one or two orders of magnitude cheaper is going to fill their order books for years to come...
Only for a short time, everybody knows about cheap drones and they are ordering cheap drones (likely from Ukraine where they are field tested to work) to shoot down drones. If the next round is in a few years patriots will only be used on much more expensive ballistic missiles.
That said, the patriot is a lot cheaper replace than the things it was defending so it was a good investment even if expensive.
If oil starts ruining the financial picture on top of just the...global welfare of every living human picture, then maybe, just maybe people will actually give up their addiction.
I don't get your point. The planet will not realistically run out of either. The water price goes up, then soler + desal becomes more cost effective, then people get to use the material that covers 75% of the planet's surface a bit more. Similarly, when oil gets more limited the price goes up and the planet gets to keep its oil while people stop being able to afford burning more of it. Or perhaps this was exactly your point.
I just checked 2015 diesel vehicles on my local craigslist (I refuse to use facebook, though I know that is where most cars are these days). A bunch of trucks for $15k-30k, and a few VWs for $15k. So then I search for electric cars from $10k-$15k and found nothing at all! YMMV in your local areas, but you will likely find the same: in the price range of a 11 year old diesel you will find nothing: EVs were still rare niches 11 years ago.
I did find a few eGolfs and leafs for $5k-8k, but in my experience if a car is that cheap there is a reason for that, so I assume they are unacceptable. There is a chance OP has a diesel truck because he needs a truck which in turn means they wouldn't work even new (the F150 lightning perhaps would)
I did find a few eGolfs and leafs for $5k-8k, but in my experience if a car is that cheap there is a reason for that
The reason is: no one wants them. Three years ago we sold an OG Leaf my spouse’s coworker for $3500. Battery was about 80%, but otherwise the car was flawless. All the buyer needed was an around-town car, and the old Leaf fit the bill. Leafs didn’t go very far on a charge, ergo they won’t have a whole lot of miles in them, and they were otherwise reliable. If it’s all you need, I’d recommend one for cheap.
Last I checked, depending on one’s needs, used EVs are among some of the best values in the US used car market. Their prices are closer to what prices on used gas cars would’ve been had the market not been turned on its head during the pandemic.
The main caveat is that available models are heavily weighted towards “compact” (RAV4 sized) SUVs and larger. There aren’t many little Prius/Fit/Soul type town car models around which is a bit paradoxical with that being the use case that EVs have been well suited to for the longest time.
I really wish Honda would release the CRV plug-in hybrid in the states. But all we get is some weird hydrogen monstrosity. China has all electric vehicles with gas generators to charge the battery. That would make this work for my scenarios too.
The problem is the "gas station mindset", where people are only able to view EV ownership through the lens of "drive till empty then fill up".
A 250 mile round trip to the beach becomes unthinkable because the gas station mindset dictates that they will have to spend 30-40 minutes at a charger on the way home.
The reality of course, is that you charge on L2 while at the beach, or stop for a quick 5-10 minute buffer charge to get you home.
So everyone is all "I need 350-400 mile range or its totally a non-starter". Its just all around confused thinking.
There are many nice places to visit that don't have, and never will have, EV charging.
EV charging sites are still much less ubiquitous than gas stations.
The ~200 mile round trip I did this Monday would have required a 30 minute detour to reach a charger on the way back.
Certainly viable, but that's a lot more logistical overhead than just heading out with a full tank in the morning.
Unfortunately it's not as black and white as that. The alternatives here in the UK are limited. It's basically ICE or electric.
We have a staggering number of people that live in apartments so charging is out of the question except at public charging points and the cheapest I've seen is £0.40/kWh. Most of the fast chargers are £0.92/kWh.
When I get my home charger fitted I'll be paying 6.9p/kWh between midnight and 6am but I have a driveway.
Not everyone can give up ICE cars. The logistics don't add up for many people plus the entire world runs on diesel - every truck, earth-mover, factory etc. relies on diesel in some fashion.
Individuals can do some things but not everything. I live in a place without reasonable public transportation but I've replaced 90% or more of my car trips with cycling, including for large grocery runs. I'll acknowledge not everyone is as fit as I am or as willing to put up with bad weather (I ride in snow for months out of the year).
Pivoting agriculture from feed grains supporting the livestock industry to crops that humans directly consume would also improve the fuel consumption picture, but people are reluctant to reduce or eliminate meats from their diets.
> Pivoting agriculture from feed grains supporting the livestock industry to crops that humans directly consume would also improve the fuel consumption picture, but people are reluctant to reduce or eliminate meats from their diets.
Cattle herds are at 75-90 year lows, and roughly half of US beef consumption is driven by 12% of folks. They'll be fine with alternate protein sources.
Huh, how does having options of ICE or EV cars mean high oil prices won't mean people try to use less oil?
If gas prices go up, expensive public EV chargers will be more appealing. I hope you get better infrastructure re: charging soon; here in California (not known for low energy prices nor for infrastructure-building capacity) most fast chargers are between US$0.50 and US$0.70 (£0.37-£0.52) per kWh, so it is definitely possible. (You also need non-fossil-based electricity generation to truly decouple from oil/gas prices.)
I share your worries about industry, though — although trucks, earth-movers, etc could theoretically run on batteries or hydrogen or something, industrial processes using petroleum and natural gas may be around for a lot longer.
When I was referring to ICE vs electric I was referring to personal transportation only.
Sometimes you just _can't_ use less oil. My own situation is that I make 5 sub-100 mile round-trip journeys each week now. It's the poster-child for home charging an EV. It saves me at least £3k a year on petrol alone.
However, I had to pay an additional £7k over and above what I sold my petrol car for (just last week, in fact) in order to get a secondhand EV. I could have gotten a much older, higher mileage one for around the same as I sold my car but that was too big a gamble for me. So I was in a position that I _could_ use less oil by switching. Not everyone has a spare £7k lying around.
I was told by a friend of mine (he's been driving electric for 5 years I think!) that a few years ago, the 92p/kWh fast chargers used to be about 30p. We now have waaaay more of them available and the price has gone up by about a factor of 3x so I don't see the price coming down any time soon and more infrastructure isn't helping in our case.
The UK energy prices are really high too: £0.13/kWh is the global average and we pay £0.27/kWh [0]. So electric isn't always the answer either unless you can get a cheap tariff.
Plus if you need to have a car and you live in a flat, you're only real option is petrol/diesel and a great many people here live in flats.
In terms of industry, it will have some luck changing the last few miles of delivery over to electric. That may be fine though - leave the mega-miles to the diesel trucks and then city and town deliveries could be made by electric vehicles where they only need to do 200 miles of stop-start driving.
Energy isn't free... if we want to power things we need to expend energy somewhere in the chain in order to do so.
No, it'll come down to blood once more. With thermonuclear explosives the de-industrialization will be even more complete than it was for Eastern Europe the last go round.
Israel has caused more damage the the US and entire world than any other country. They blackmailed our politicians into this war and we continue to suffer for their bloodlust.
You know that societal change is not a force of nature that just happens to us?
Your president is threatening the whole world and all you "freedom-loving" americans manage to do is shrugging with the shoulders. A nation of spineless hypocrites.
I think a great many Democrats could have warned you this type of war was not only possible but likely under Trump. People made an active, conscious decision to vote for him or to not vote. No one to blame but themselves for this, they got what they voted for (yup non-voters also share the blame, no one can feign ignorance on Donald Trump or the Republican party). Not that it matters, the rest of us get to suffer the consequences right along with them.
Democrats are equally enthusiastic about attacking Iran. Just listen to Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. It was also Biden who started the Gaza genocide with Israel. Thats the point, the American government is 100% captured by Zionists. There’s no voting your way out of it.
You know the big old orange guy in the White House? He did it.
... Like, come on now. What do you think, Israel is blackmailing him? He is unblackmailable; most of the country hates him, and his supporters would not be put off by any conceivable misbehaviour or perversion (if that Russian piss tape ever comes out, do you really think it will change anyone's vote, say?) It's like the tariffs; he did it because he has a bunch of idiosyncratic ideas about the world and doesn't listen to expert advice.
The smart ones properly realized that their home is no longer in the republican party. The others were swept up in culture war because... What other adults do in their lives needs immediate government intervention from the party of small government.
My question isn't whether those who voted for Trump 2024 are going to come to their senses for midterms and sour on this incompetent, destructive, and corrupt con man. My question is how long their reality check is going to last before they start leaning right back into their revanchist destructionist feel-good narratives. This could have all been prevented if they had listened to their fellow citizens rather than writing us off as caricatures of woke boosters as their media propagandists led them to. Was Trump 2024 a true enough example of what they demanded that we can finally put this "lost cause" bullshit to bed? Or are its glaring results only going to remain obvious long enough for another temporary reprieve?
Lately I've been making a conscious effort to flip my coordinate system around on inflation.
Instead of tracking cost increases of fuel, I try to conceptualize prices for all things in equivalent fuel or metered energy.
The fed can overlook energy and food in their "preferred metric of inflation", but that's 90% of what I care about as an individual. Very interesting to track your purchasing power in MWh
I’ve been doing something similar, tracking the price of technology purchase in terms of AAPL shares for 20+ years. It’s amazing how much cheaper computers have gotten!
Its weird that american people never protest anything in big masses, or at least its very rare and almost never happens for core livelihood issues (wars, cost of living, corrupt politics...).
It's so different compared to Europe, and I was always wondering why. Is it better propaganda machine or?
Not just massive, they were the largest single-day protests in US history, each exceeding the last.
The problem is that they didn’t move the needle at all, politically - the Oct 2025 protest, for example, was followed immediately by the embarrassing capitulation by the Dems on the shutdown. This is the real reason protest in the US is relatively rare: the political class has thoroughly insulated itself from it.
Americans are too busy working for all that. Their GDP per capita is almost double leading EU countries, except for a couple of outliers like Ireland and Switzerland.
You can complain about what you don't have, or you can work to produce it.
Then again, Americans are sometimes called workaholics, working far more hours. So in some ways this is just a lifestyle choice.
133 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 8.4 ms ] threadeven if you do not drive, it affects every delivery
imagine this pattern through 2029
https://gasprices.aaa.com/
800 more days, even just a penny increase per day
we're out of $4 Million dollar tomahawks and the iranians have endless supply of $50K drones
strategic oil reserve is about to experience permanent catastrophic damage from being drained too low
Apparently salt domes have a life span, you pump water in to remove oil. The water wears at the domes and removes more salt creating a larger cavern. It's not that we pumped out so much oil lately, it's because we were pumping out little bits over the last 5 decades constantly wearing at the domes. They were created at the time to only be used in a catastrophic situation, not when ever you want to control the price of oil......
Either way, you are correct in that their life has come to an end, we will require more expensive above ground storage going forward or we can electrify.
24 years ago, I recall diesel being $1.25/gallon, and hamburger meat at a little local grocer for $1/pound any time they had a sale.
Now, even going to Costco, their ground chuck is $6/pound.
If you look at the timeline, and the demographics of voters who lost enthusiasm for Biden between 2020 and 2024, it looks like a whole lotta the Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck decided to vote their pocketbooks.
Vs. back in '72, when Biden was just getting elected to the Senate, Pres. Nixon was a noisy anti-inflation zealot. (Not saying Nixon was sane, nor legal...) Since Nixon was re-elected with >60% of the popular vote - in spite of negatives like the Vietnam War - I'd say that the Dem's failure to follow a so-obvious winning reelection strategy was exactly what handed Trump the opportunity to make the decisions which you so strongly dislike.
Incompetence or malice? Both is also possible...
Treasury has already tried to reassure markets and failed
Add to this other trade war nonsense...
This was the desired effect though, as higher oil prices means more profit for US based oil producers. I'm sure that will trickle down any time now.
Someone else suggested they see $85/bbl as the ideal price. I don't know if that is true, but it seems reasonable.
This is a really complex optimization problem, but slowing EV adoption, which low gas prices help, is likely the better course for a few more years. Eventually just gouge the petrol users left is the most profit, but I don't think that has been reached yet.
Honestly, I think you're giving far too much credit to the current US government.
A US administration sympathetic to Russia stands to benefit from higher oil prices.
That's giving the Trump administration too much credit. Before the war there were pieces about how oil companies were doing worse under Trump than under Biden[1]. Of course, you could argue that the Iran war is Trump finally responding to oil companies, but given that it only started more than a year after he took power, it really makes you wonder whether Trump is bumbling along, or playing some 5d chess with the global oil market. On the flip side there's plenty of evidence that he doesn't want high oil prices, for instance lifting sanctions on Iranian and Russian oil.
[1] https://www.economist.com/business/2025/02/06/donald-trump-l...
Like any senile octogenarian you want to do something, brainwash them to do your bidding and make it think it's their own choice
I am unsure its by design or just idiocy. (Probably a mix of both).
The real question is what happens after the elections. There is a lot happening in Iran and nobody can figure out which factions really are gaining power (we know who is the public voice of power, but not if they have real power)
I think saying he's lying is too generous. It implies intent. I think he's just not capable of separating truth from fiction anymore.
There is nothing stopping US refineries from producing more diesel, you can use both sweet and sour, this is speculators squeezing the markets.
What a great time it should be to electrify heavy transportation. If they can do it in mining and construction, why can't transportation...
Aren't they already producing as much as they can? Which is not sufficient given that globally a significant fraction of refining capacity is offline.
Because supply side. Can't have our oil barons losing out.
Or are you saying the Ukraine drone strikes have not affected the output at a scale where it matters globally?
Ukraine strikes to impact the world price. However most of the impact is in Russia, elsewhere the effect is less. Iran is larger effect because the middle east as a more significant share of global oil. (both have an effect, but Iran is larger)
But then it also makes Chinese EV including trucks extremely attractive replacement. So China making a profit as well.
Is there any reason why Diesel costs more? I was always under the impression that it was a less-refined fuel therefore cheaper.
Jet fuel and diesel fuel come from similar parts of the barrel. Refineries can largely choose what kind of fuel they produce for a given unit of input. One barrel doesn't always split into the same fractions. There is configuration involved.
This started, I believe when fracking became a major thing (the late 2000s), because shale oils tends to have less heavy hydrocarbons then the old wells.
And the ethanol makes the fuel less valuable (energy reduction per litre) moreso than biodiesel.
I was always under the impression that a big part of the difference in cost is largely due to taxes.
While diesel is less refined, the difference isn't much. These days both are heavily refined products, and the cost to refine gasoline isn't very much per gallon.
The real answer: supply/demand is the key factor in the price you pay. Cost to create/build a product generally sets a floor on the price you pay: a business that isn't making money will stop making the product (loss leaders exist, but not a factor here).
That's the problem with hindsight theories, especially if only using a limit horizon into the past.
Over the past 20-ish years fracked oil, which is mostly too light to cost effectively refine into diesel but makes nice gasoline, has made up most of the increase in oil production. At the same time, conventional crude oil production has been slowly declining. Conventional crude is quite easy to refine into diesel. Heavy/sour crude replacements are more expensive to refine into diesel because more work is needed; also preexisting refineries need refitting to support it.
The net result is that diesel production hasn't kept up with the wider percentage increase in oil-based fuels and refinement is more expensive because it's a choice between cheaper oil which requires more work and costly refits, or less-available and therefore more expensive base oil. Thusly diesel is more expensive due to cost of production and reduced relative supply.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1120422634/breaking-down-the-...
Losing at war is universally bad. And long stalemated forever wars can be just as bad for both sides.
That said, the patriot is a lot cheaper replace than the things it was defending so it was a good investment even if expensive.
Rule of Acquisition number 35: Peace is good for business.
Really wish I had a better memory so I could memorize these as a lot of them would be really fun as everyday quips.
I don't like it either but you have to pick your battles these days.
I did find a few eGolfs and leafs for $5k-8k, but in my experience if a car is that cheap there is a reason for that, so I assume they are unacceptable. There is a chance OP has a diesel truck because he needs a truck which in turn means they wouldn't work even new (the F150 lightning perhaps would)
The reason is: no one wants them. Three years ago we sold an OG Leaf my spouse’s coworker for $3500. Battery was about 80%, but otherwise the car was flawless. All the buyer needed was an around-town car, and the old Leaf fit the bill. Leafs didn’t go very far on a charge, ergo they won’t have a whole lot of miles in them, and they were otherwise reliable. If it’s all you need, I’d recommend one for cheap.
The main caveat is that available models are heavily weighted towards “compact” (RAV4 sized) SUVs and larger. There aren’t many little Prius/Fit/Soul type town car models around which is a bit paradoxical with that being the use case that EVs have been well suited to for the longest time.
A 250 mile round trip to the beach becomes unthinkable because the gas station mindset dictates that they will have to spend 30-40 minutes at a charger on the way home.
The reality of course, is that you charge on L2 while at the beach, or stop for a quick 5-10 minute buffer charge to get you home.
So everyone is all "I need 350-400 mile range or its totally a non-starter". Its just all around confused thinking.
EV charging sites are still much less ubiquitous than gas stations.
The ~200 mile round trip I did this Monday would have required a 30 minute detour to reach a charger on the way back. Certainly viable, but that's a lot more logistical overhead than just heading out with a full tank in the morning.
It's lost 60% of its value, has only done 57k miles and has a battery state of health of 97.4%. I paid £22k.
I still maintain that new cars, especially new electric cars, are not worth the money but secondhand ones are a bargain now... relatively speaking.
The climate doesn't care what is and isn't worth the money.
We have a staggering number of people that live in apartments so charging is out of the question except at public charging points and the cheapest I've seen is £0.40/kWh. Most of the fast chargers are £0.92/kWh.
When I get my home charger fitted I'll be paying 6.9p/kWh between midnight and 6am but I have a driveway.
Not everyone can give up ICE cars. The logistics don't add up for many people plus the entire world runs on diesel - every truck, earth-mover, factory etc. relies on diesel in some fashion.
Pivoting agriculture from feed grains supporting the livestock industry to crops that humans directly consume would also improve the fuel consumption picture, but people are reluctant to reduce or eliminate meats from their diets.
Cattle herds are at 75-90 year lows, and roughly half of US beef consumption is driven by 12% of folks. They'll be fine with alternate protein sources.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/20/beef-usd...
If gas prices go up, expensive public EV chargers will be more appealing. I hope you get better infrastructure re: charging soon; here in California (not known for low energy prices nor for infrastructure-building capacity) most fast chargers are between US$0.50 and US$0.70 (£0.37-£0.52) per kWh, so it is definitely possible. (You also need non-fossil-based electricity generation to truly decouple from oil/gas prices.)
I share your worries about industry, though — although trucks, earth-movers, etc could theoretically run on batteries or hydrogen or something, industrial processes using petroleum and natural gas may be around for a lot longer.
Sometimes you just _can't_ use less oil. My own situation is that I make 5 sub-100 mile round-trip journeys each week now. It's the poster-child for home charging an EV. It saves me at least £3k a year on petrol alone.
However, I had to pay an additional £7k over and above what I sold my petrol car for (just last week, in fact) in order to get a secondhand EV. I could have gotten a much older, higher mileage one for around the same as I sold my car but that was too big a gamble for me. So I was in a position that I _could_ use less oil by switching. Not everyone has a spare £7k lying around.
I was told by a friend of mine (he's been driving electric for 5 years I think!) that a few years ago, the 92p/kWh fast chargers used to be about 30p. We now have waaaay more of them available and the price has gone up by about a factor of 3x so I don't see the price coming down any time soon and more infrastructure isn't helping in our case.
The UK energy prices are really high too: £0.13/kWh is the global average and we pay £0.27/kWh [0]. So electric isn't always the answer either unless you can get a cheap tariff.
Plus if you need to have a car and you live in a flat, you're only real option is petrol/diesel and a great many people here live in flats.
In terms of industry, it will have some luck changing the last few miles of delivery over to electric. That may be fine though - leave the mega-miles to the diesel trucks and then city and town deliveries could be made by electric vehicles where they only need to do 200 miles of stop-start driving.
Energy isn't free... if we want to power things we need to expend energy somewhere in the chain in order to do so.
[0] - https://selectra.co.uk/energy/guides/tariffs/world
Your president is threatening the whole world and all you "freedom-loving" americans manage to do is shrugging with the shoulders. A nation of spineless hypocrites.
You know the big old orange guy in the White House? He did it.
... Like, come on now. What do you think, Israel is blackmailing him? He is unblackmailable; most of the country hates him, and his supporters would not be put off by any conceivable misbehaviour or perversion (if that Russian piss tape ever comes out, do you really think it will change anyone's vote, say?) It's like the tariffs; he did it because he has a bunch of idiosyncratic ideas about the world and doesn't listen to expert advice.
I am not interested in nominal new highs.
Still that makes very clear why Venezuela had to happen before Iran.
As someone who drives a 2003 Golf TDI, I'm currently looking at CAD 2.40/L: EUR1.49/USD1.73 per L.
Which is why I'm no longer in the party... Where did the rest of us go?
Instead of tracking cost increases of fuel, I try to conceptualize prices for all things in equivalent fuel or metered energy.
The fed can overlook energy and food in their "preferred metric of inflation", but that's 90% of what I care about as an individual. Very interesting to track your purchasing power in MWh
The problem is that they didn’t move the needle at all, politically - the Oct 2025 protest, for example, was followed immediately by the embarrassing capitulation by the Dems on the shutdown. This is the real reason protest in the US is relatively rare: the political class has thoroughly insulated itself from it.
You can complain about what you don't have, or you can work to produce it.
Then again, Americans are sometimes called workaholics, working far more hours. So in some ways this is just a lifestyle choice.
* https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/diesel_prices/
* https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/