Ford stock downgraded = improved Maverick chances???

[bill67]

Neo-Luddism or new Luddism is a philosophy opposing many forms of modern technology. ...

Sponsored

 

[JimParker256]

But you always had gas to put in them. No matter how many you produced. Now really what's point.

I believe his point is that "back in the day" the infrastructure to support gasoline powered vehicles didn't exist. What people failed to understand (at that time) was the as the demand grew, the infrastructure expanded because it became profitable to grow it. Now you can purchase gasoline in even the tiniest towns - even towns too small to have a grocery store. (I'm not counting "convenience stores" as grocery stores.)

I believe we will see similar advances in the power grid, as demand for gasoline drops, and the big energy companies (Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc.) finally start getting serious about remaining relevant in a world of diminishing oil reserves, rising oil costs, and growing demand for electrical power. We're already starting to see a bit of that, as some gas stations begin to add electric vehicle charging stations to their locations.

The bigger question in my mind is what is going to be the power source for that grid? Coal? Oil? Both have the root problem of limited remaining stores. Hydro? The cost in terms of land use is astronomical at this point. Nuclear? People are ridiculously scared of nuclear power here in the US, and it's unlikely to prove politically viable. What's left? I'm not sure, but that's where people like Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc. should be investing their huge profits - exploring alternative energy sources.

All this is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree with any of the above.

 

[SLINGSHOT]

Calm down Bill. None of this will mean squat in 10 years.

 

[pa-outdoorsman]

I believe his point is that "back in the day" the infrastructure to support gasoline powered vehicles didn't exist. What people failed to understand (at that time) was the as the demand grew, the infrastructure expanded because it became profitable to grow it. Now you can purchase gasoline in even the tiniest towns - even towns too small to have a grocery store. (I'm not counting "convenience stores" as grocery stores.)

I believe we will see similar advances in the power grid, as demand for gasoline drops, and the big energy companies (Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc.) finally start getting serious about remaining relevant in a world of diminishing oil reserves, rising oil costs, and growing demand for electrical power. We're already starting to see a bit of that, as some gas stations begin to add electric vehicle charging stations to their locations.

The bigger question in my mind is what is going to be the power source for that grid? Coal? Oil? Both have the root problem of limited remaining stores. Hydro? The cost in terms of land use is astronomical at this point. Nuclear? People are ridiculously scared of nuclear power here in the US, and it's unlikely to prove politically viable. What's left? I'm not sure, but that's where people like Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc. should be investing their huge profits - exploring alternative energy sources.

All this is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree with any of the above.

Limited reserves? Yeah we probably only have another 200 years or so of known reserves...

 

[pa-outdoorsman]

There are currently almost 50 years of "proven" oil reserves.

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/#...serves,levels and excluding unproven reserves).

Interestingly the U.S. Has the most oil reserves in the world and considering how much territory remains to be explored there is most certainly more than enough for at least another century.

https://www.aogr.com/web-exclusives/exclusive-story/u.s.-holds-most-recoverable-oil-reserves

 

[JimParker256]

Limited reserves? Yeah we probably only have another 200 years or so of known reserves...

Well, we can quibble over the different numbers, but the Worldometer site said we have proven reserves equivalent to roughly 47 times our annual consumption levels. And it's costing more to get those reserves out of the ground. But I'm not saying we have an immediate crisis on our hands, just that we SHOULD be planning ahead a bit. You can't switch to nuclear power overnight, and that may well be the "most promising" of the known energy sources. (See France, for example... LOTS of nuclear power plants running safely for years.)

If we're going to come up with something else, we'd better get moving on it. (Nuclear fusion, perhaps? So far, no real success there... but promising in theory.)

 

[pa-outdoorsman]

Well, we can quibble over the different numbers, but the Worldometer site said we have proven reserves equivalent to roughly 47 times our annual consumption levels. And it's costing more to get those reserves out of the ground. But I'm not saying we have an immediate crisis on our hands, just that we SHOULD be planning ahead a bit. You can't switch to nuclear power overnight, and that may well be the "most promising" of the known energy sources. (See France, for example... LOTS of nuclear power plants running safely for years.)

I'm all for exploring all alternative energy sources and developing related technology. However the current focus on "green" energy to the exclusion of affordable energy for working class families as we pursue the transition doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[JimParker256]

I'm all for exploring all alternative energy sources and developing related technology. However the current focus on "green" energy to the exclusion of affordable energy for working class families as we pursue the transition doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't believe I used the term "green energy" anywhere in my posts. In fact, I specifically referenced nuclear energy, which most "greenies" do not support. I want "viable" alternatives, which means cost-effective, bountiful, and reasonably safe. So I think we're in fundamental agreement, just perhaps coming at it from different directions.

 

[bill67]

Your on top things. I'll pass that on to my grand

I believe his point is that "back in the day" the infrastructure to support gasoline powered vehicles didn't exist. What people failed to understand (at that time) was the as the demand grew, the infrastructure expanded because it became profitable to grow it. Now you can purchase gasoline in even the tiniest towns - even towns too small to have a grocery store. (I'm not counting "convenience stores" as grocery stores.)

I believe we will see similar advances in the power grid, as demand for gasoline drops, and the big energy companies (Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc.) finally start getting serious about remaining relevant in a world of diminishing oil reserves, rising oil costs, and growing demand for electrical power. We're already starting to see a bit of that, as some gas stations begin to add electric vehicle charging stations to their locations.

The bigger question in my mind is what is going to be the power source for that grid? Coal? Oil? Both have the root problem of limited remaining stores. Hydro? The cost in terms of land use is astronomical at this point. Nuclear? People are ridiculously scared of nuclear power here in the US, and it's unlikely to prove politically viable. What's left? I'm not sure, but that's where people like Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc. should be investing their huge profits - exploring alternative energy sources.

All this is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree with any of the above.

I agree.

I believe his point is that "back in the day" the infrastructure to support gasoline powered vehicles didn't exist. What people failed to understand (at that time) was the as the demand grew, the infrastructure expanded because it became profitable to grow it. Now you can purchase gasoline in even the tiniest towns - even towns too small to have a grocery store. (I'm not counting "convenience stores" as grocery stores.)

I believe we will see similar advances in the power grid, as demand for gasoline drops, and the big energy companies (Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc.) finally start getting serious about remaining relevant in a world of diminishing oil reserves, rising oil costs, and growing demand for electrical power. We're already starting to see a bit of that, as some gas stations begin to add electric vehicle charging stations to their locations.

The bigger question in my mind is what is going to be the power source for that grid? Coal? Oil? Both have the root problem of limited remaining stores. Hydro? The cost in terms of land use is astronomical at this point. Nuclear? People are ridiculously scared of nuclear power here in the US, and it's unlikely to prove politically viable. What's left? I'm not sure, but that's where people like Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc. should be investing their huge profits - exploring alternative energy sources.

All this is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree with any of the above.

I believe his point is that "back in the day" the infrastructure to support gasoline powered vehicles didn't exist. What people failed to understand (at that time) was the as the demand grew, the infrastructure expanded because it became profitable to grow it. Now you can purchase gasoline in even the tiniest towns - even towns too small to have a grocery store. (I'm not counting "convenience stores" as grocery stores.)

I believe we will see similar advances in the power grid, as demand for gasoline drops, and the big energy companies (Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc.) finally start getting serious about remaining relevant in a world of diminishing oil reserves, rising oil costs, and growing demand for electrical power. We're already starting to see a bit of that, as some gas stations begin to add electric vehicle charging stations to their locations.

The bigger question in my mind is what is going to be the power source for that grid? Coal? Oil? Both have the root problem of limited remaining stores. Hydro? The cost in terms of land use is astronomical at this point. Nuclear? People are ridiculously scared of nuclear power here in the US, and it's unlikely to prove politically viable. What's left? I'm not sure, but that's where people like Exxon/Mobile, BP, etc. should be investing their huge profits - exploring alternative energy sources.

All this is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree with any of the above.

I totally agree. Hopefully someone will step forward to invest in a system that has that has a estimated 2 trillion deficit .

 

[jibbersmav]

I started working in electric grid in 69 retired in 02. So you are right if you can't find it then I am misinformed.thanks for letting me know.

Can anyone write some kind of script I can use to block users over a certain age?

 

[pa-outdoorsman]

I don't believe I used the term "green energy" anywhere in my posts. In fact, I specifically referenced nuclear energy, which most "greenies" do not support. I want "viable" alternatives, which means cost-effective, bountiful, and reasonably safe. So I think we're in fundamental agreement, just perhaps coming at it from different directions.

I have no opposition to nuclear and I used the term green broadly. Not meant to point at you.

Like I said we all want clean air and water. Green is fine let's get there in a common sense manner and not cut off our noses to spite our face along the way.

 

[bill67]

Can anyone write some kind of script I can use to block users over a certain age?

Aren't you special.

 

[Impetus19]

This is where the EV's lose me. I can't even get a hybrid maverick built with a tiny 1.1kwh battery in less than 12-14 months and somehow we are supposed to transition to EV's? Hopefully the technology will get cheaper and less resource intensive. But right now my EV is the train that i walk to.

 

[jibbersmav]

This is where the EV's lose me. I can't even get a hybrid maverick built with a tiny 1.1kwh battery in less than 12-14 months and somehow we are supposed to transition to EV's? Hopefully the technology will get cheaper and less resource intensive. But right now my EV is the train that i walk to.

1. Any “transition to EVs” is like a 50 year plan.
2. The battery is not the holdup in getting hybrids built. I’m sure you have noticed that the EcoBoost Mavs are taking 12-14 months too, right?

 

[Mavonorder]

As bad as 1974 was for inflation, 1980 was worse. We see high inflation about every 10 years. Only time since 1960 it was negative was in 2009. 2015 was super low too at .12% rate. 1970, 74, 80, and 90 were all worse than 2021 was. 1974 & 1980 always seemed the worst to me.

Inflation calculations have reportedly changed over the decades and inflation today, if calculated using 1970s methods, would be higher than the 70s.

Sponsored