ford has a new plan

[v-man]

this is good stuff I appreciate your opinions the only certain thing is change and it happening all round us enjoy the ride. I will in my gt 350 and more

Sponsored

 

[oldbmwfan]

Excellent.

I smiled the whole time reading your response. I had the same Bloomberg article up and ready to go as I wondered if you were versed on how automation has impacted upon the industry. I don't know if you fell upon it or had seen it previously but kudos to you my friend.

Regarding coal - jobs were absolutely lost to planning and decision making in the last 8 years at the Executive level. The extent to which will be far more reaching with the passage of time. Yes, automation has had an impact. But the most direct way was to legislate what in effect would be the phasing out of coal fired generation plants via Obama's "Climate Action Plan" as a "ban on constructing new coal-fired power plants…as there is no technology commercially available and capable of meeting the standards set."
https://shimkus.house.gov/media-center/opeds/obamas-epa-trying-to-kill-coal-raise-your-electric-bill

I get the fact that various states have been able to "decouple" their economic growth from growth in carbon emissions. Decarbonizing has been embraced and as such anything dirty is something to be avoided politically (and we are told now, morally, "just think about the children") and from a corporate standpoint. Coal has been painted such that it is so awful it will most likely never recover.



Bottom line - we need a relatively inexpensive, robust and reliable power grid. At current, we have that with coal (witness the charts in one of your links). Diversification is what made it this way. Momentum has gained such that we are headed in a direction that will reduce the number of choices, increase cost to the consumer, and be potentially less reliable.

Definitely agree with the last point - coal works, the infrastructure is there, and it is stable and predictable. Over time, though, the grid needs to evolve to handle more intermittent generation sources. The rise in EVs and local home battery backups (way more useful than a generator for urban settings) will actually help that; lots of buffering capacity plugged in. Still a big role for nuclear, too, but people are scared of it.

Re. automation, it's something I've known about for a while (as I said, something of an energy geek). Kind of related to the Carrier plant political stuff; in the initial announcement Carrier stated they would keep most of the jobs in Indiana and invest $700M in the plant ... for automation. Uhh, so, they're keeping most of the jobs for what, 2 years? Okay.

In the end, I have to fault the leadership of WV for the plight of WV today. To use a fairly bad personal finance analogy, they utterly failed to diversify their investment portfolio when their major holding was at clear risk from multiple factors. WV is freaking beautiful; there is no reason it couldn't be a tourism hotbed. It is dirt cheap; there is no reason it couldn't have attracted tech investments (similarly "boring" Indianapolis has made a huge investment in attracting technology start-ups and has been very successful in doing so - but it was 10-15 years of work; starting now would be too late). It's a shame that the state is being hit so hard, but it could have been prevented.

As for the original point of the thread, $14B in cuts seems drastic, but it's <10% of their 2016 revenue. The really interesting question is, where will the cuts come from, how much fat is there, and what functions will they be outsourcing? For that, I'd have to know the relative costs of different functions and what could feasibly be handled by suppliers and other third-parties. I just hope they don't slack on quality or performance; that's the death knell. Ultimately it's always the product that wins.

 

[oldbmwfan]

First talk about thread drift. My prediction a neutered FP.
Power Grid... The idea of a power grid is no longer relevant. The old system of large scale power plants has died along with need for long distance transmission lines. Reason dual cycle natural gas generators. The are small cheap and need very little maintenance, don't pollute, need very little water. What we need is more gas pipelines. A recent article tried to say pipelines will fail because the compressor stations run of the grid. Not so they run off the gas in the pipeline. Dual cycle has highest efficiency of any fossil fuel. A turbine burns gas to turn a generator then hot exhaust boils water to turn another generator. They only need maintenance once a year! A unit will fit on trailer bed, when its worn out a new one arrives and can be swapped in day. Lots industry that needs lots of juice like data centers are generating there own power. Thus no grid necessary. This allows New development to provide its own power. Look at Florida. Three pipelines one from Louisiana buried, one from Texas under the gulf, and Sable/Sabine gas from marcleus. Makes them all compete on price and redundancy. So lots of little plants no grid. Better.
Also you can take old coal plant gut the building put in two gas lines. Leave the 1950 edifice in place, make a park out the old parking lot and coal storage area, remove railroad tracks put in bike trail. Get twice as much power and sell distilled water. Problem hardly no employees. Makes money for town. Nothing but CO2. GAS will eclipse coal and nuclear and works well with wind and solar because of fast up/down cycles. Wind, Thermal and Solar will need grids because you need lots of space away from people. Gas will provide best price

That's a great point about decentralized generation being the next big wave. Works for gas as well as solar, at least for much of the country.

Will be interesting to see what happens with NG pricing over time.

 

[Epiphany]

Coal isn't sustainable for the long term ecologically and environmentally - and the push by supporters to further deregulate cannibalizes the workforce. You mentioned the moral implications of continuing down a path with harmful consequences to those other than ourselves and it almost seems like that's a non issue to you? Perhaps you truly don't believe there's a long term issue.

Therein lies the rub.

Isn't sustainable in terms of the ecology/environment to whom? Environmental groups? People? Animals? Who sets the standards? How is any level of pollution acceptable?

I mentioned moral implications in jest. How children/elderly/everyone is affected is impacted by "X" is always icing on the cake. Let's simplify. You drive a ICE car, yes? Why do you continue to drive it when you know it is harmful to the environment? Have you no sense of guilt? Have you thought about the long term effects of your actions and why do you continue to do the same thing? Apparently you care little of your own actions. Let's hear you rationalize as to how your own contribution is such that it is acceptable.

Regarding coal - it is obviously on the way out. It has become a modern day "evil" and as such the mechanisms in place that encourage its use have been killed. It has been a robust/low cost energy form for over a century but that doesn't cut it in the age of global enviro-policy. Next up on today's chopping block - cars like Mr Cincinnati's. The same group/ideology are itching to deal the death blow. I'd like to share a bit from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and an "estimate of the overall GHG emissions reduction potential and costs for improving the efficiency of the world’s light-duty vehicle fleet (thus reducing carbon emissions)." Lots of data to look at but most importantly, the following...

...increasing acceleration performance and vehicle weight have stifled increases in fuel economy for light-duty vehicles and these trends must be stopped if substantial progress is to be made in fleet efficiency.

...estimated fuel economy values are attainable only if trends towards ever-increasing vehicle performance are stifled; this may be difficult to achieve.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-4-2-1.html

 

[JAJ]

For more than 20 years I've been a bit skeptical about the environmental policy and politics that have developed since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. I read State of Fear by Michael Crichton, which is an excellent analysis, written in the form of a fiction novel, of the massive movement of money and other resources that flowed from the "environmental crisis".

Added: The biggest challenge I've had with environmental politics is the behavior of the actors. A small group of experts hold the truth in their hands, and skeptics from within their ranks are cast out if they speak openly. Scientists lose their jobs. If a member of the public should question the dogma, they're treated like any heretic would be. First they're shouted down, then they're dragged (figuratively) into the town square, doused with (figurative) gasoline and (figuratively) set alight. My problem with this is that it's not the behavior of a scientific or engineering community engaging with measurements and facts. It looks more like a belief-based system that feeds on itself and destroys critics as they appear.

However, that doesn't mean they're wrong. The recent ramp up of extreme weather events (Cat 5 hurricanes used to be rare) and long droughts in California and other regions, disappearing glaciers and a bunch of hard to miss real world signals have given me pause to think again. I've reached a point in my thinking that I'm willing to believe that there are enough humans on earth with technologies and machines that give us the capability to actually change the nature of the global environment.

For the moment, the consequences seem to be limited to a higher rate of extreme weather and weather-related events like droughts, floods and wildfires. But what comes next? Will it all be fine, or are we at risk of setting Earth on a path to a dusty future that looks a lot like Mars? We have no idea, and that's what's challenging about all this.

Nature spent eons pulling carbon out of the air and putting it in the ground. In 150 years, we've dug up a huge amount of it and put it back into the atmosphere without really understanding the consequences.

 

[superman07]

FYI Coal can be pretty darn clean, My wife worked for the EPA for over 22 years. Energy companies do not want to invest in the equipment to scrub, and clean their emissions. They prefer to use their funds for lobbying, and lining their own pockets. I am a capitalist however fundamentally a combination of stupid and greedy people are rendering a properly functioning economy, that prices in innovation and the cost of compliance and risk inoperable. The CEO, Lobbyist, politician, and corporate attorney are doing well.

If you get your info from television your already wrong. Political actors are already working hard to be sure it is even more difficult to get information without an agenda. Both sides are more worried about themselves than the truth.

 

[AirBusPilot]

The problem I have with coal is strip mining and how it destroys the land.

 

[Hack]

The problem I have with coal is strip mining and how it destroys the land.

Can you explain how land is destroyed? Maybe compare coal mining's impact to the impact of heavy metal mining for modern battery components?

 

[v-man]

FYI Coal can be pretty darn clean, My wife worked for the EPA for over 22 years. Energy companies do not want to invest in the equipment to scrub, and clean their emissions. They prefer to use their funds for lobbying, and lining their own pockets. I am a capitalist however fundamentally a combination of stupid and greedy people are rendering a properly functioning economy, that prices in innovation and the cost of compliance and risk inoperable. The CEO, Lobbyist, politician, and corporate attorney are doing well.

If you get your info from television your already wrong. Political actors are already working hard to be sure it is even more difficult to get information without an agenda. Both sides are more worried about themselves than the truth.

the corruption is mind blowing we need to end the two party system may help a bit l love my country but..... people need to be nice meet in the middle and care about the people they represent how is all the politicians go in with a few millions and come out with 10;s of millions working for the lobbyist they were to protect us from

 

[AirBusPilot]

Can you explain how land is destroyed? Maybe compare coal mining's impact to the impact of heavy metal mining for modern battery components?

https://earthjustice.org/slideshow/images-of-mountaintop-removal-mining

You’ll need to conduct your own reasearch on your second question.

 

[oldbmwfan]

Can you explain how land is destroyed? Maybe compare coal mining's impact to the impact of heavy metal mining for modern battery components?

Re. the 2nd question, heavy metals in batteries can be recycled to a large degree. Not that the mining itself isn't damaging, but at least it isn't a one-time consumable product.

 

[Hack]

https://earthjustice.org/slideshow/images-of-mountaintop-removal-mining

You’ll need to conduct your own reasearch on your second question.

Thanks for the link. I don't get what the big deal is. Yep, someone is removing material from the ground. That's what mining is. Now all of a sudden people are trying to say that there's something wrong with mining? Very offensive stuff.

Re. the 2nd question, heavy metals in batteries can be recycled to a large degree. Not that the mining itself isn't damaging, but at least it isn't a one-time consumable product.

So mining is bad, but as long as you can recycle what you mine then it becomes good?

 

[TONYG]

Here in Pennsylvania, mining doesn't ruin the landscape the way it did decades ago. There is a very high bond you must put up first before you start, high enough to make sure you go back and landscape/plant what you fucked up in the first place. Then after I believe five years, the land is revaluated, and then you can apply to recoup your bond money.
Surface miners now go after forgotten land and dig deeper, the land that is clearly a mess from a bygone era is then bonded, reclaimed, mined and then unfuckified.

The land here isn't destroyed anymore, simply not tolerated in the Pa. coal region. We also take in the old waste coal banks (culm) that blemish the area, its really never been better as far as mining is concerned.

Maybe I'm the only one who find it amusing that, we can't produce batteries here or steel (frowned upon), yet, we can gladly take them from a country like China with next to zero emission regulations...

 

[TONYG]

https://earthjustice.org/slideshow/images-of-mountaintop-removal-mining

You’ll need to conduct your own reasearch on your second question.

Pushing dirt and rock into waterways? Yeah, go ahead and try that, the fines will bury your business in a blink!

Those big bad draglines? When you have a hard left leaning storyteller...whatever. :doh:

 

[oldbmwfan]

Thanks for the link. I don't get what the big deal is. Yep, someone is removing material from the ground. That's what mining is. Now all of a sudden people are trying to say that there's something wrong with mining? Very offensive stuff.



So mining is bad, but as long as you can recycle what you mine then it becomes good?

Damaging activity that results in a relatively durable and reusable good is less damaging, in a comprehensive view, than damaging activity that must be repeated for each unit of product used.

You know that old phrase, "reduce, reuse, recycle?" There is a reason that concept is presented in that order.

Sponsored