BojackPferd

BojackPferd t1_iuib90d wrote

Reply to comment by mywifesBF69 in Why aren't people buying energy stocks? by InterestingHurry1834

I disagree. Why would green tech look any different in 20 years? The only two possible ways that could happen is a massive cost reduction of geothermal or a fusion power breaktrough. Nuclear energy is in no way competitive at all, there is no business case for nuclear energy at the slightest, since the power plants are more expensive to operate and to build and financially very risky to build compared to all alternatives. Furthermore nuclear fuel requires more and more energy to mine and refine, which means costs only rise, at the same time nuclear only becomes worse and worse for the environment since the amount of pollution for building the plants, tearing them down, maintenance and the uranium fuel pollution and energy used for the fuel just gets higher and higher. Now lets assume a fusion power breaktrough indeed does happen, it would still take another decade to build the first plants and then many more decades to replace all the existing coal, gas and nuclear power plants. Only then at the very end and only IF fusion power was very cheap, (unlikely, although its costs would decline slowly over the decades) could it possibly replace wind or solar. WInd and solar have DECLINING costs over time. And the introduction of green hydrogen into industrial production will massively accelerate this, its in fact already being accelerated from it. Since there are big syngeries to get from combining hydrogen with volatile renewable energy production. You are right that power transmission improvements are essential.. however those are already underway in large scale and really can only do so much. Fossil fuels will remain necessary for the next 100 or more years unless something drastical happens.

1

BojackPferd t1_iuejfws wrote

Reply to Even an Inside Trader Would Have Problems in This Market by KingN0

The game is only rigged out of the perspective of those with limited insight and ressources. The trader teams with millions in budget and highly developed algorithms and all the data access you can dream of surely don't think it's rigged.. for them. They rig it for you because you compete against them.

1

BojackPferd t1_itg7zo9 wrote

Reply to comment by victoriaveloster in 1987 vw jetta. Starts, runs, tiny maintenance costs and never left me stranded. Soon 300k km. Got it since 5y + by korky1318

crap? bro, the BMWs and Mercs from the 1990s and the early 2000s are very high quality and durable. There are so many on the road with 400.000km and more and they drive like new. In general I would not call german cars low quality, BMW, Mercedes and Volvo are the brands in my country that are very frequently spotted on the used sales market with extremely high mileage and still are sold at very high prices. Its basically impossible to find a reasonably priced BMW or Mercedes with low mileage in Denmark, you either pay a fortune or you buy one with 400.000km on it, or one of the unloved Diesels that are an economical nightmare because you pay 1500-3000$ in annual road tax. There is a reason all the taxis are Mercedes. Further I`d say the BMW e39 is probably the best sedan of its era, apart from rust being something to be careful about, they do last forever. My first car was a e39 and I sold it to my mom later on, its now 21 years old and in a mechanically perfect condition, wear parts break over time but thats it and the engine will never ever ever break, those in-line 6 engines can go for a million miles with no overhaul and barely any wear. It does not even use any engine oil, I topped off 0,5l over 40000km. The only non-wear part that needed replacement was the braking power assist that eventually got weaker and then broke after 20 years of use but gradually and not a sudden loss of braking power. If it wasn't for the insane danish taxation model, id immediately buy another Bmw e39, but the annual taxes are a third of the cars value.

1