Why is Ford Risking Mustang to Take on Tesla?

[Briebee72]

Of course not. I just remember thinking about spending a million miles in the same car. Not me!

Oh god no..lol. I get trade in bug about a year in lol

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 35786]

It takes all kinds. Remember this.
https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2012/10/22/volvo-240-reaches-1-million-miles/
Crazy, right?

and all hail the Honda Civic..
https://www.thedrive.com/news/29982...miles-on-its-original-engine-and-transmission

Cars that made it to a million miles.
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/going-the-distance-7-cars-that-have-gone-1m-miles/

 

[Lo Pony]

I actually want Nuclear (fission and fusion).... It is the only viable technology as it stands today to supply our energy needs without fossil fuels in a large grid. Solar is useful for micro grids and local home power generation but do have issues scaling up to a large grid. And I do not mean Nuclear reactors from the 50s.... Much more modern and better designs out there for reactors that solve ALOT of issues (not the least of which being meltdowns...)

I’m actually waiting for the all hydroelectric-powered vehicle.

 

[Bullitt0819]

I’m actually waiting for the all hydroelectric-powered vehicle.

The local electric, and irrigation water, provider, Modesto Irrigation District (MID) gets most or all of its electrons from hydro. So, a BEV charged locally would be pollution-free (if you don't count all the canyons flooded by dams, roads to-and-from and canals).

 

[Lo Pony]

No I just want a little dam and waterfall on top of the car.

 

[Bikeman315]

No I just want a little dam and waterfall on top of the car.

Here you go.......

 

[Bullitt0819]

If we're talking about saving the whales, hugging polar bears, and being actually environmentally conscious, hydro has some of the worst environmental impact of all energy sources. Those dams wreck the ecosystems both up and downstream. It takes decades to centuries for a stable equilibrium to establish dependending on the size of the flood zone/amount drained downstream. I'm not just talking about the local effects either. Enough damming can change weather patterns and create pockets of more arid land in the surrounding area. Nuclear is much lower impact. Now we just need to get Arizona to look the other way while we drop the spent fuel a mile deep in the mountains, far away from habitable land and any aquifers...

Well, I alluded to some of the consequences, and you made all sorts of assumptions of what kind of person I am (Disclaimer: I'm a 'gentleman' farmer*, gun-owner and aircraft and automobile enthusiast). Maybe if I used all caps (I know subtlety has been highly downgraded these days):

IF YOU DON'T COUNT ALL THE CANYONS FLOODED BY DAMS, ROADS TO-AND-FROM AND CANALS.

Better?

More negative ramifications came to mind, including some you mentioned, after I posted. I haven't researched the plan thoroughly but, on a superficial level MID seems to be attempting to mediate some of the possible detrimental side-effects of hydro:

https://www.untilthelastdrop.com/

Propaganda? Probably a bit, but what isn't these days. And if you enjoy nuts (almonds, walnuts) and fruits (peaches, cantaloupes, watermelons, pumpkins and squash, to name a few) and vegetables (not sure, but I think we grow some lettuce on the West Side) you can thank the water provided by these reservoirs.

Ah, found a list:

http://www.seecalifornia.com/farms/county-stanislaus-annual-crops.html


Now, you seem to be a 'big picture' kind of guy, but you missed a big part of the picture: The pollution and environmental impact of getting the radioactive materials required for power production by fission--namely uranium, I'm less familiar with the thorium fission process--out of the Earth:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/nuclear-greenpolitics

You want more info you can search 'environmental effects of uranium mining' for yourself; you'll get plenty of results, or drive through Utah and note all the holes in cliffs and large tailing piles; I learned uranium ore is less radioactive than granite--who knew?--as a solid but watch out for the powder.

As for:

'If we're talking about saving the whales, hugging polar bears, and being actually environmentally conscious ...'

I get what you're implying: "You like to keep your house and properly (reasonably) clean and in kept-up condition, your firearms and tools in good working order and your vehicles--I have 9 to operate and maintain (including two Mustangs), all oil-fueled--in good running condition while making an effort to preserve our (one and only) environment when you can so you must be a real pussy."

I get it, you have stock in a uranium/thorium mining company and/or a nuclear power plant--or other vested interest--and I do understand that all methods of producing electric power have some drawbacks (including solar and wind and, of course, hydro). I for one think nuclear is a plausible solution for power production but, to my knowledge no one has solved the waste disposal problem (which you essentially made a joke about). Even Nevada--Nevada!--doesn't want a nuclear waste site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

"... most nuclear power plants in the United States have resorted to the indefinite on-site dry cask storage of waste in steel and concrete casks."

Anybody think this is a great idea (before you start again, I understand the issues are political as much as environmental or technical)?

I also have mixed feelings about the environmental consequences of mining--all sorts of it--while acknowledging our modern world would not be possible without extracting metals (and fuels) from the Earth. But, I'm capable of holding two conflicting thoughts in my head at the same time ... Oh My God ... I must be a whale- and polar bear-hugger!**


* I inherited a small almond ranch and I'm learning how to run it.

** Actually, I hope I never get close enough to a hungry polar bear to hug it; from what I hear they could kick a Kodiak's or grizzly's ass.

 

[Bikeman315]

On a related note, how about the strip mining for the metals in batteries? Bottom line is, we are really bad at living here. May as well enjoy it while it lasts. I just find it funny when people mention "hydro" and "clean energy" in the same sentence.

Agreed. None of the alternatives are really clean, but we need to find something to replace fossil fuels. So pick your poison, nuclear, wind, sun, or water.

 

[Bullitt0819]

On a related note, how about the strip mining for the metals in batteries? Bottom line is, we are really bad at living here. May as well enjoy it while it lasts. I just find it funny when people mention "hydro" and "clean energy" in the same sentence.

Point taken, and I'll be more careful in my wording next time (I should have said 'relatively'). I took it on faith that the readers of this forum would understand that all sources of energy--including solar--as having some resource and environmental negative impacts (solar cells contain cadmium and lead, are not recyclable so are their own form of toxic waste) . Unfortunately, (new) nuclear is all but a non-starter in the US due to fear from the uninformed--the recent screening of "Chernobyl" on HBO certainly didn't help matters--and the waste disposal issues.

re: "Enough damming can change weather patterns and create pockets of more arid land in the surrounding area."

I've not heard of this, got a reference? I've lived in or near the Central Valley all of my 66+ years, and have never seen nor heard of any such 'pockets of more arid land.' The many reservoirs in this area, with the exception of New Melones and Don Pedro, are relatively small, and I've not not heard of them influencing the climate at all (silting is certainly an issue). Most of our meteorological effects are influenced by on/offshore winds from the Pacific and the rain shadows from the nearby Mountain Range, and summer heat due to our near-sea level elevation. In the summer, orographic lifting from onshore winds lift moist air high over the Sierras, causing frequent, spectacular thunderstorms (very cool, unless you get caught flying through one of them). I suspect the large columns of rising moist air from a nuke plant's cooling towers would have some interesting effects, though I've not personally witnessed any. The plumes from the decommissioned Rancho Seco plant, near Sacramento, cooling towers were excellent VFR references for pilots (you could spot them from hundreds of miles away on a clear day)

I dispute your contention that nuclear is cleaner full-cycle--counting mining, refinement, transportation, consumption and disposal of radioactive elements--than hydro, but if you have definitive proof (from reasonably unbiased sources) I will concede your point.

This site--I can't vouch for it, but it looks to be business/financial related--all but calls it a draw (the worst affect of hydro is silting, which is indisputable, and the worst aspect of nuclear is the waste--pick your poison):

https://bizfluent.com/about-6160410-comparison-between-hydropower-nuclear-energy.html

 

[Bikeman315]

Cold fusion.

Sponsored