Based on my understanding many of them are.
If my memory serves me correctly you are involved in the auto parts business, is that correct?
Yeah but on the retail side. Been doing it for ten years.
How would you envision the impact on the auto parts industry going from combustion engine vehicles to electric?
I can agree that the alternative energy zealots are frustrating. I personally find the partisan zealots on both sides frustrating.
But we shouldn’t let the far left drive the discussion too much. Their insistence that alternative energy is a total solution does not need to push us to declare it a non solution as some do on the far right. The partisans insist on dividing the entire universe into two exclusive sides and I won’t have it. I am
An ala carte consumer of ideas.
You are probably right about air standards pushing coal out in favor of NG. Fortunate we have that resource available because I tend to agree that some level of emission control is desirable.
The problem is they are driving this discussion…and imposing their laws, forcing their views on American people.
Look no farther then Harris/Biden admin are appointing.
2 Likes
Well, it wouldn’t really affect the biggest parts of the market. The majority of auto parts aftermarket is centered around preventive maintenance and replacing failed components. Weirdly enough, engines only play a small role in that. We make far more money off of brake components, steering components, electrical subsystems (many of which are engine and transmission related, but there is also the “body” control subsystems that fail even more frequently), customization, so on and so forth.
So electric cars won’t really affect us as much as people think. Electric cars still have brake components, steering systems, and electrical subsystems that they share with their internal combustion counterparts. As long as people “own” cars, electric or otherwise, there will always be a need for the aftermarket supply chain.
What worries me long term, and why I’m fixing to go back to college, is the idea of “owning” cars going away with the expansion of ride sharing and leasing cars. More people are leasing vehicles due to the increased repair costs of modern vehicles and city slickers are often forgoing car ownership in favor of ride sharing programs.
1 Like
I get it, but that part was built in to the OP’s framing.
I don’t see the far left driving much of the discussion in this thread in the forum. Just members discussing the pros and cons of changing energy sources.
On a side note I ran across this in the news
Navajo Generation Plant Demolition
I remember flying over that thing as a kid and thinking what the hell is that doing in the middle of nowhere!
You raise an interesting point, the thing is that I don’t hear much about Geothermal in the green energy discussion. I wonder if there’s enough population in the areas of the US in which Geothermal makes sense?
That sounds like a lot, but if we are not going to be building much of the green technology here in the US (Solyndra anyone) then so much for all those promised good paying green jobs.
Where are you going to get the resources to get to the asteroids and back?
Yes they do. It takes energy to produce them and even more then to deal with the waste when their lifespan is over.
There is a huge cost as well in dealing with all the toxic materials related to their production and much of that is due to the energy required.
The laws of thermodynamics also make it impossible to efficiently transmit power from places where wind is blowing and sun is shining to where it is not cost effectively.
We’re probably within a hundred years of that being feasible now that getting into space is getting so much cheaper.
You might want to read my post again.
My point all along is that there will be a huge net loss of jobs in the US due to attempts to change over to wind and solar.
1 Like
But it still, and always will, takes an enormous amount of resources to do so.
^
.
IMHO, “Green Energy” is only going to be viable when we have both large scale enterprise level and consumer product energy storage many magnitudes greater then is currently available.
Generation is only half the problem, storing the energy developed is the other half. Until there is enough energy in “storage” to meet demand during “off” times, then backup fossil fuel sources will still have to exist.
.
.
.
.WW, PSHS
1 Like
Your premise fails on it face.
Fossils fuels are derived from solar energy. And they are economically viable. So thermodynamics does not prohibit the economically feasible utilization of solar energy.
Your argument is really about bringing in other phenomenon, mostly from economics and relative abundance and availability to make a case against solar.
Thermodynamics does not dictate that solar energy is non viable.
Technically, you can use it anywhere, if you go deep enough.
Unfortunately not.
You’re also one seismic shift from losing that generating source at any given time.
One thing that might be feasible though is using steam generated from geothermal to push water for hydro power.
The steam of course cools and condenses but if you could manage the pressure necessary then you could push water a long way to drive generators many miles away.
Still though you have the reliability problem.
Which quickly becomes cost prohibitive going deeper than a few miles.
The crust is much thicker than that in most of the inhabited world.
