tommy1808
Posts: 10865
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:17 am

LOT767301ER wrote:
In case you have absolutely no idea what I am still talking about and you cant find page 2 of your google results that finally gets to real research and not hit pieces - let me make it easy for you - http://www.american.edu/kogod/research/autoindex/index.cfm


Well.. with cars pretty much getting a 15 points head start for being made in the US by a US company and 9 points a foreign company car can´t possibly get, the outcome isn´t really that surprising now, is it?
For a "Study", they also have to assume a lot ...... labor costs, profit margin are just assumed, the inflexible points system is hiding the fact that foreign companies have much bigger R&D Budgets than the US companies and may actually spend more on R&D in the US as US companies.After all, from the 55 billion spend on R&D by the top 10 spenders in the industry, just a puny quarter is spend by US companies. And people wonder why they are not competitive.....
On Top of that, aside of the Toyota Sienna, both studies agree pretty much on the US content of the foreign made car, the American University just came up with a magic murica bonus to be added in.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:20 pm

LOT767301ER wrote:
cledaybuck wrote:
Aesma wrote:

German luxury cars are popular both among higher and lower classes. Granted, the lower classes are more likely to buy used.

Do buyers check if they are made in USA or not ?
What does buy American even mean? The two most "made in the USA cars" are the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/ca ... /86510052/


Clue me in on something. Do you actually believe that people who know anything about this subject will believe a USA Today article that is written for the masses by someone who has little knowledge about they're talking about? The majority on here probably will because anyone who actually knew 2 snots about cars on here for the most part left so all we have is this kind of garbage being posted.

Since you have some free time because surely you just wasted some of it reading that USA Today article you might as well go and educate yourself on the most comprehensive research that has been done in this field that takes into account R&D, Labor, peripheral parts supply etc. It dissects things included in the BS PR pieces like the one you posted which take US and Canadian parts and label the latter domestic while allowing rounding errors up to 30% to fall into that figure. So while some of what you say is true, in no shape, way or form is any Honda or Toyota in the top 5 nor 6 or 7 of a true domestic car. The Accord for example has less total domestic content for this MY than last years and has fallen out of the Top 10.

In case you have absolutely no idea what I am still talking about and you cant find page 2 of your google results that finally gets to real research and not hit pieces - let me make it easy for you - http://www.american.edu/kogod/research/autoindex/index.cfm
Thanks for that condescending reply. Since you have some free time because surely you just wasted some of it replying to me you might as well go ahead and educate yourself on how to respond to someone without being a raging asshole.

Now, if you want to discuss the strengths/weaknesses of the cars.com study or the American University study in a civilized manner, I am game. Otherwise, don't bother responding.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1535
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:41 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
LOT767301ER wrote:
In case you have absolutely no idea what I am still talking about and you cant find page 2 of your google results that finally gets to real research and not hit pieces - let me make it easy for you - http://www.american.edu/kogod/research/autoindex/index.cfm


Well.. with cars pretty much getting a 15 points head start for being made in the US by a US company and 9 points a foreign company car can´t possibly get, the outcome isn´t really that surprising now, is it?
For a "Study", they also have to assume a lot ...... labor costs, profit margin are just assumed, the inflexible points system is hiding the fact that foreign companies have much bigger R&D Budgets than the US companies and may actually spend more on R&D in the US as US companies.After all, from the 55 billion spend on R&D by the top 10 spenders in the industry, just a puny quarter is spend by US companies. And people wonder why they are not competitive.....
On Top of that, aside of the Toyota Sienna, both studies agree pretty much on the US content of the foreign made car, the American University just came up with a magic murica bonus to be added in.

best regards
Thomas
Yep. It very much looks like a study set up to get a specific result. Apparently, none of the profits from a Honda go to Honda USA in California, they all go back to Japan. And 100% of Honda's stock owners are not US citizens while 100% of Ford's are. American HQed car companies also get 100% credit for R&D despite the fact they do R&D all over the world, like almost all automakers.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
apodino
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Fri Jul 07, 2017 4:52 pm

seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Republicans keep duping their base into thinking that "our" oil that "we" extract from the ground stays in the United States and is not subject to things like the open market or OPEC embargoes or what the private oil and gas industry wants to charge.


So what IF that is true? Any evidence that it is true?

What matter does it make about what anyone, Republican or Democrat, understands about the fungibility of oil?

What is your POINT?


First off: "Both sides do it" is the worst excuse ever. EVER. It is simply justifying bad behavior and allowing "your" side to get away with things and to ease your conscience so you can feel superior to "them." I suppose that Democrats can rig an election with China's help because "both sides do it" and that will make the current Russian scandal legal and alright.

Second: Read. What. I. Wrote. Republicans keep this silly "it is our oil" nonsense going that just makes their base (you) think and believe it is really something good and truthful. Do you honestly believe that "our" oil taken from the Bakken will stay 100% completely in the United States? Or "our" oil taken from the North Slope of Alaska will stay 100% completely in the United States? Or even coal, for that matter or natural gas? Do you honestly believe that? Because "your" party tells you that?

If you honestly believe that, I have some beachfront property in Colorado you should look at.


Personally I don't believe it. That being said, if more oil is produced in the US, that means we have to import less oil from countries that don't like us very much. But is all the oil going to stay here? No, of course not. It will make us less dependent on foreign oil, but it will also send more oil abroad leaving less wealth here than is promised.

That being said, I feel more needs to be done with alternative renewable energy sources than is being done. We are getting more power generated from Wind and Hydroelectic plants these days, and we need to do more. If you live in a deregulated state, switch to a provider that provides from 100 percent green sources. We need to develop electric cars, and find other non carbon sources for these. The technology is there to 100 percent make our rails powered by electricity, yet the railroads for the most part will still rely on diesel. I give Elon Musk credit for his vision in this area, even though he stands to profit big time from it.

One question that needs to be asked though. Is it the governments or the private sectors job to fund the R & D? One issue that has been run into with grants in the past is the money went to companies well connected to certain political parties and after burning through the cash, the companies went belly up, leaving the Govt with zero ROI and increased budget deficits. But is there enough reward financially for the private sector to take a risk at funding this themselves? This is a big difference between the political parties. I don't have the ultimate answer to this. But I can tell you that Climate Change is real, and the GOP in my opinion gains nothing by not addressing this. In my opinion, it can be addressed in a way that addresses the concerns about big government that the typical GOP voter has. No one seems to want to do it though.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9972
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:11 pm

apodino wrote:
I give Elon Musk credit for his vision in this area, even though he stands to profit big time from it.


Everyone can start a company and start investing in clean energy. So marked forces should keep Musk in check. Although he is burning money at the moment.

apodino wrote:
One question that needs to be asked though. Is it the governments or the private sectors job to fund the R & D? One issue that has been run into with grants in the past is the money went to companies well connected to certain political parties and after burning through the cash, the companies went belly up, leaving the Govt with zero ROI and increased budget deficits. But is there enough reward financially for the private sector to take a risk at funding this themselves? This is a big difference between the political parties. I don't have the ultimate answer to this. But I can tell you that Climate Change is real, and the GOP in my opinion gains nothing by not addressing this. In my opinion, it can be addressed in a way that addresses the concerns about big government that the typical GOP voter has. No one seems to want to do it though.


R&D can be funded by private companies nowadays, the really risky phase seems to be over. What the government should do is price fossil fuels right, so hefty taxes to compensate for all the damage fossil fuels are doing to the health of people and to the health of the planet. And the government should set a timelimit to selling fossil fuel cars. Norway has done this, by 2025 no more fossil fueled cars can be sold, France is doing this b 2040 (far too late), The Netherlands a motion has been adopted to this by 2025. In that way car companies can adapt. Both aren't going to inflate the government and will set the incentive right to let the marked forces solve this.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20677
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:02 am

apodino wrote:
seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:

So what IF that is true? Any evidence that it is true?

What matter does it make about what anyone, Republican or Democrat, understands about the fungibility of oil?

What is your POINT?


First off: "Both sides do it" is the worst excuse ever. EVER. It is simply justifying bad behavior and allowing "your" side to get away with things and to ease your conscience so you can feel superior to "them." I suppose that Democrats can rig an election with China's help because "both sides do it" and that will make the current Russian scandal legal and alright.

Second: Read. What. I. Wrote. Republicans keep this silly "it is our oil" nonsense going that just makes their base (you) think and believe it is really something good and truthful. Do you honestly believe that "our" oil taken from the Bakken will stay 100% completely in the United States? Or "our" oil taken from the North Slope of Alaska will stay 100% completely in the United States? Or even coal, for that matter or natural gas? Do you honestly believe that? Because "your" party tells you that?

If you honestly believe that, I have some beachfront property in Colorado you should look at.


Personally I don't believe it.


What part don't you believe? I am asking because you did not reference "it" in your response.

If anyone remembers the OPEC embargo of the 1970s, even having "our" oil kept "here" it still would not have helped. "We" would have had that oil on the open market, with only a certain per cent staying here. That does not make us energy independent. Especially considering "our" oil goes to nearly every other nation. So, if there were another OPEC embargo or when supplies finally start running dry, "we" will have to support the rest of the world. These "fossil fuel first" policies of the right have failed before they started.

Hydrogen and electric cars are still a long way from being as good as they should be. But, they are a start. Volvo and France are on the right track to just not worry about WHEN not IF the fossil fuel runs out.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:33 am

seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Another thing that really gets me is Republicans use the same tired talking point that America must be energy independent, so we must drill baby drill and pollute, environment be damned because that is our oil and gas. But what Republicans fail to tell their voters is that "our" oil always always always ends up on the open market going to places like China, India, Russia, Mexico and only stays here because oil and gas companies get money for us to use our products.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2016 the USA imported and exported the following (billions of barrels) of petroleum products:

Imports:. 2,883,117,000 barrels

Exports: 1,898,701,000 barrels

What difference does it make whether our exports are from crude that is imported into the USA or from crude that is extracted here?


Republicans keep duping their base into thinking that "our" oil that "we" extract from the ground stays in the United States and is not subject to things like the open market or OPEC embargoes or what the private oil and gas industry wants to charge.


At the risk of sounding stupid (which I have way more times than I would care to admit), has the US exported oil anytime in recent history since the past couple of years?

If I'm right enough/not entirely stupid, I think seb146 is a bit misinformed. The argument for more drilling is different from the argument to keep oil onshore. The former I think was more of an offshoot of the less regulation mantra (and, ironically, an argument for federal government intervention against the states whenever it was convenient for Republican administrations). It was always done in the name of energy independence, but now that we've achieved it (again, I might add), what's going to change? Not a damned bit, which I think is what seb146 is alluding to.

I do agree that this has had the net effect of "duping," just as Apple does in its iPhone commercials. It was something that you could dangle in front of consumers and say, "Wouldn't you like lower gas prices if it weren't for the stupid government?" (case in point, as a true populist, the President tweeted for even lower gas prices earlier in the week). It was duping to the extent it was politically driven. Kind of like spending an inordinate amount of energy pretending the real reason ISIS is in power is because Obama wouldn't say "radical Islamic terrorism" and "Mr-I-Have-A-Plan-To-Defeat-ISIS-In-Two-Weeks-You'll-Hear-About-It-In-Four-After-I'm-Done" comes out and says "radical Islamic terrorism" and, guess what, nothing changes. But, boy, do a lot of people have continue to get their rocks off hearing it, for God knows what reason.

Anyway, oil is done. Coal was done for ages ago. You can't rebuild an economy by reverting back to old technology unless you want to reduce your standard of living. That said, the complete demonization of oil and other fossil fuels while turning a blind eye to things like water usage for agriculture in California and silicon chips at factories in Arizona and New Mexico (Intel is inside!) indicates either blissful ignorance or abject disingenuousness.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:09 am

Funny how Europeans are such incredible experts on all matters of the United States. Dunning-Kruger at it's finest.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20677
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:32 am

jetero wrote:
seb146 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2016 the USA imported and exported the following (billions of barrels) of petroleum products:

Imports:. 2,883,117,000 barrels

Exports: 1,898,701,000 barrels

What difference does it make whether our exports are from crude that is imported into the USA or from crude that is extracted here?


Republicans keep duping their base into thinking that "our" oil that "we" extract from the ground stays in the United States and is not subject to things like the open market or OPEC embargoes or what the private oil and gas industry wants to charge.


At the risk of sounding stupid (which I have way more times than I would care to admit), has the US exported oil anytime in recent history since the past couple of years?

If I'm right enough/not entirely stupid, I think seb146 is a bit misinformed. The argument for more drilling is different from the argument to keep oil onshore. The former I think was more of an offshoot of the less regulation mantra (and, ironically, an argument for federal government intervention against the states whenever it was convenient for Republican administrations). It was always done in the name of energy independence, but now that we've achieved it (again, I might add), what's going to change? Not a damned bit, which I think is what seb146 is alluding to.

I do agree that this has had the net effect of "duping," just as Apple does in its iPhone commercials. It was something that you could dangle in front of consumers and say, "Wouldn't you like lower gas prices if it weren't for the stupid government?" (case in point, as a true populist, the President tweeted for even lower gas prices earlier in the week). It was duping to the extent it was politically driven. Kind of like spending an inordinate amount of energy pretending the real reason ISIS is in power is because Obama wouldn't say "radical Islamic terrorism" and "Mr-I-Have-A-Plan-To-Defeat-ISIS-In-Two-Weeks-You'll-Hear-About-It-In-Four-After-I'm-Done" comes out and says "radical Islamic terrorism" and, guess what, nothing changes. But, boy, do a lot of people have continue to get their rocks off hearing it, for God knows what reason.

Anyway, oil is done. Coal was done for ages ago. You can't rebuild an economy by reverting back to old technology unless you want to reduce your standard of living. That said, the complete demonization of oil and other fossil fuels while turning a blind eye to things like water usage for agriculture in California and silicon chips at factories in Arizona and New Mexico (Intel is inside!) indicates either blissful ignorance or abject disingenuousness.


I get that there is no substitution this second for oil. We need a great substitution for oil. What I am saying is this notion that oil only will solve all of America's problems is worthless. We do need oil until we can get some great alternative. The problem is that Republicans refuse to see that. Democrats see the cash cow of oil but understand that we need alternatives, too. Bad but not as bad as oil only.

America exports oil. The profit goes to multi national corporations who will trickle that down to us, according to Republicans. Still waiting for that. But, the point is that multi national corporations do not have America's (or American's) best interests at heart. Just because multi national corporations say it and Republicans parrot it does not mean it is good or fair or right for the United States or us.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12234
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:50 am

Dutchy wrote:

And the government should set a timelimit to selling fossil fuel cars. Norway has done this, by 2025 no more fossil fueled cars can be sold, France is doing this b 2040 (far too late), The Netherlands a motion has been adopted to this by 2025. In that way car companies can adapt. Both aren't going to inflate the government and will set the incentive right to let the marked forces solve this.


This is a myth, to quote from Trump its fake news, Norway has not done this at all, a party in govt has proposed this but the govt has not picked it up, it was met with howls of protest and strong opposition. The French 2040 proposal is far more realistic.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9972
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 9:42 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

And the government should set a timelimit to selling fossil fuel cars. Norway has done this, by 2025 no more fossil fueled cars can be sold, France is doing this b 2040 (far too late), The Netherlands a motion has been adopted to this by 2025. In that way car companies can adapt. Both aren't going to inflate the government and will set the incentive right to let the marked forces solve this.


This is a myth, to quote from Trump its fake news, Norway has not done this at all, a party in govt has proposed this but the govt has not picked it up, it was met with howls of protest and strong opposition. The French 2040 proposal is far more realistic.


Ok, researched it a bit further and the government of Norway is indeed not banning the sale of fossil fuel powered cars. But calling it a myth and fake news is as far from the truth as Trump claiming that his inauguration was the one with the most attendance.

So the real story seems to be, the proposal: http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 65616.html

And what the government has actually adopted: Government targets sale of only zero or low emission models with 'polluter pays' principle https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/indu ... -cars-2025

So Norway indeed wants to phase out the fossil fuel cars with tax and other incentives, but if your heart is set on polluting the earth a bit more, you can, but with stiff financial sacrifices. Already 22% (2015) of all cars sold in Norway are electric, so not unattainable at all. So, Rob, why would you call 2040 far more realistic. What technic has to be invented by then to phase out all fossil fuel cars? I would say the range is still a bit low, Tesla Model 3 seems to have a range of over 300km and the next hurdle could be, where to get juice, so the infrastructure needs to be build up. Car manufacturers would have 7 years to match the performance of Tesla, so again, why would that not be achievable, if the political will is there to call this one. If the EU truly wants to be a world leader, they would be the ones to call it and set this target. 2025 - 2030 timeframe, why not, I haven't heard a single argument that has some real base.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12234
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:12 pm

The problem with Norways proposal is it hurts poor people, people who can't afford to buy new electric and hydrogen vehicles, the people who will have to pay the higher registration, fuel tax and whatever else they throw at fossil fuel vehicles. So unless the govt removed the sales tax on vehicles this plan is going to cause a huge amount of financial pain to a lot of people. i plan on sitting on my two audis until the govt makes its mind up.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9972
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:40 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
The problem with Norways proposal is it hurts poor people, people who can't afford to buy new electric and hydrogen vehicles, the people who will have to pay the higher registration, fuel tax and whatever else they throw at fossil fuel vehicles. So unless the govt removed the sales tax on vehicles this plan is going to cause a huge amount of financial pain to a lot of people. i plan on sitting on my two audis until the govt makes its mind up.


The government can always mitigate measures, never an excuse not doing something.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
bgm
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:53 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
Dunning-Kruger at it's finest.


Look no further than 45 if you want to see it at its finest.
████ ███ █ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ [redacted]
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:32 pm

bgm wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
Dunning-Kruger at it's finest.


Look no further than 45 if you want to see it at its finest.


Ooooooooo, perfect!! How have I not heard about that before? Maybe they'll even rename it for Trump.
 
apodino
Posts: 3577
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:55 pm

seb146 wrote:
apodino wrote:
seb146 wrote:

First off: "Both sides do it" is the worst excuse ever. EVER. It is simply justifying bad behavior and allowing "your" side to get away with things and to ease your conscience so you can feel superior to "them." I suppose that Democrats can rig an election with China's help because "both sides do it" and that will make the current Russian scandal legal and alright.

Second: Read. What. I. Wrote. Republicans keep this silly "it is our oil" nonsense going that just makes their base (you) think and believe it is really something good and truthful. Do you honestly believe that "our" oil taken from the Bakken will stay 100% completely in the United States? Or "our" oil taken from the North Slope of Alaska will stay 100% completely in the United States? Or even coal, for that matter or natural gas? Do you honestly believe that? Because "your" party tells you that?

If you honestly believe that, I have some beachfront property in Colorado you should look at.


Personally I don't believe it.


What part don't you believe? I am asking because you did not reference "it" in your response.

If anyone remembers the OPEC embargo of the 1970s, even having "our" oil kept "here" it still would not have helped. "We" would have had that oil on the open market, with only a certain per cent staying here. That does not make us energy independent. Especially considering "our" oil goes to nearly every other nation. So, if there were another OPEC embargo or when supplies finally start running dry, "we" will have to support the rest of the world. These "fossil fuel first" policies of the right have failed before they started.

Hydrogen and electric cars are still a long way from being as good as they should be. But, they are a start. Volvo and France are on the right track to just not worry about WHEN not IF the fossil fuel runs out.

What I don't believe is that if we drilled for more oil it would stay in the US. The statement was agreeing with your post about the same topic. But because we are producing so much oil now, the need for us to import the oil has reduced and reduced, which is killing OPEC...not to mention the fact that it has led to an oversupply of oil. OPEC is well aware that an embargo would not work because the US now has the ability to supply much of the world, which would cripple OPEC even more.

There are other things we could be doing right now that would help reduce our dependency on oil. One thing is that trains are fully capable of electric power, and electric power is actually more efficient for trains than diesel since electric locomotives can generate far more horsepower and they don't pollute. The railroads wont even bother with it. In Boston for example, a commuter line to Wickford Junction RI from south station is electrified being part of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, and the MBTA still runs diesel locomotives on the line. They could electrify the rest of the system easily. And they still don't do it, even though this is one of the most liberal places in the country. And the result is the air quality in Back Bay Station is so bad, people with lung problems are being advised not to use the station. (I have found it hard to breathe in that station as the air is disgusting) The MBTA doesn't even realize electric trains would solve the problem, but yet they try to ventilate it further and it doesn't work. Railroads would save a lot in the long run with a switch to electric locomotives.

One thing I am concerned about is a report I read which I don't have a link to, but it indicates that Solar may be more harmful than fossil fuels because the chemicals used in solar panels are far more toxic, meaning if they had to be disposed of, there would be no safe way to do so. I will try to find a non political article on this, because this is a politically charged issue and I want to deal with facts.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:34 pm

apodino wrote:
[
One thing I am concerned about is a report I read which I don't have a link to, but it indicates that Solar may be more harmful than fossil fuels because the chemicals used in solar panels are far more toxic, meaning if they had to be disposed of, there would be no safe way to do so. I will try to find a non political article on this, because this is a politically charged issue and I want to deal with facts.

This story is one of many that came up via Google search: A Clean Energy's Dirty Little Secret

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ean-energy

I suspect that as the amount of solar panels needing recycling grows substantially, efficient recycling methods will come into existence.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5700
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:37 pm

Australian Reporter Chris Uhlmann on Trump Not being a Leader G-20 ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l-jvYcS0KQ&t=5s
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20677
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:24 am

apodino wrote:
seb146 wrote:
apodino wrote:

Personally I don't believe it.


What part don't you believe? I am asking because you did not reference "it" in your response.

If anyone remembers the OPEC embargo of the 1970s, even having "our" oil kept "here" it still would not have helped. "We" would have had that oil on the open market, with only a certain per cent staying here. That does not make us energy independent. Especially considering "our" oil goes to nearly every other nation. So, if there were another OPEC embargo or when supplies finally start running dry, "we" will have to support the rest of the world. These "fossil fuel first" policies of the right have failed before they started.

Hydrogen and electric cars are still a long way from being as good as they should be. But, they are a start. Volvo and France are on the right track to just not worry about WHEN not IF the fossil fuel runs out.

What I don't believe is that if we drilled for more oil it would stay in the US. The statement was agreeing with your post about the same topic. But because we are producing so much oil now, the need for us to import the oil has reduced and reduced, which is killing OPEC...not to mention the fact that it has led to an oversupply of oil. OPEC is well aware that an embargo would not work because the US now has the ability to supply much of the world, which would cripple OPEC even more.

There are other things we could be doing right now that would help reduce our dependency on oil. One thing is that trains are fully capable of electric power, and electric power is actually more efficient for trains than diesel since electric locomotives can generate far more horsepower and they don't pollute. The railroads wont even bother with it. In Boston for example, a commuter line to Wickford Junction RI from south station is electrified being part of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, and the MBTA still runs diesel locomotives on the line. They could electrify the rest of the system easily. And they still don't do it, even though this is one of the most liberal places in the country. And the result is the air quality in Back Bay Station is so bad, people with lung problems are being advised not to use the station. (I have found it hard to breathe in that station as the air is disgusting) The MBTA doesn't even realize electric trains would solve the problem, but yet they try to ventilate it further and it doesn't work. Railroads would save a lot in the long run with a switch to electric locomotives.

One thing I am concerned about is a report I read which I don't have a link to, but it indicates that Solar may be more harmful than fossil fuels because the chemicals used in solar panels are far more toxic, meaning if they had to be disposed of, there would be no safe way to do so. I will try to find a non political article on this, because this is a politically charged issue and I want to deal with facts.


You actually bring up good points about putting Americans to work. One would be electrifying the railroads, the other is disposing of solar panels. Why not open factories that make electrical components for the railroads and for disposing and recycling of solar panels and electric car batteries? I had heard something a while back that might be an issue for the hybrid cars like the Prius: battery disposal. Well, put Americans to work recycling those components.

I don't know about MBTA's specific issue with diesel locomotives, but I do know that, several years ago during the economic crash, Tri-Met in Portland Oregon bought diesel fuel in bulk. They bought it at a terrible price and had to raise fares during the crash just to pay for the fuel. During that time, they learned things and have a very different way of negotiating fuel prices and are currently switching to diesel-electric hybrid buses. Or maybe MBTA simply has horrible budgeting?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 11833
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:32 am

UltimoTiger777 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Death Penalty: One of the last remaining 58 nations on this planet, being left behind even by the republic of Congo
Thomas


Yet countries such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan still use capital punishment. They are hardly backward places are they?


Actually on several issues they are extremely backwards/crazy/inhumane.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Rest Of World Leaving The U.S. Behind

Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:55 am

cledaybuck wrote:
Yep. It very much looks like a study set up to get a specific result.


bending over backwards too:
(cite from the link : how we did it )
In 2014, Fiat acquired the outstanding shares of Chrysler. The new entity, Fiat Chrysler Automotive (FCA), is headquartered in the Netherlands with a tax domicile in London, and shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange. As such, because of the hybrid nature of its organizational structure and its large production and R&D presence in the U.S., we assigned a value of 3 for profit margin and R&D, rather than a 6 or 0.
Murphy is an optimist

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 3BNBE, Aaron747, alfa164, casinterest, mad99, seahawk, trpmb6 and 61 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos