Newfie wrote:Like Saudi Arabia having no farms?
I keep saying, collectively we are really pretty stupid.
Tanada wrote:It is just very strange to me that a country that built its own defense aircraft in WW II is willing to just let its entire manufacturing capacity go away without doing anything to change the trajectory. No manufacturing will make Australia totally dependent on other countries for manufactured goods, how hard is that to understand?
Shaved Monkey wrote:Its just ideological madness,allowing the free market to dictate as though the free market knows whats best.
The theory is we sell iron ore and coal to China and they make stuff for us cheaply.
Shaved Monkey wrote:Tanada wrote:It is just very strange to me that a country that built its own defense aircraft in WW II is willing to just let its entire manufacturing capacity go away without doing anything to change the trajectory. No manufacturing will make Australia totally dependent on other countries for manufactured goods, how hard is that to understand?
Its just ideological madness,allowing the free market to dictate as though the free market knows whats best.
The theory is we sell iron ore and coal to China and they make stuff for us cheaply.
Tanada wrote:It is just very strange to me that a country that built its own defense aircraft in WW II is willing to just let its entire manufacturing capacity go away without doing anything to change the trajectory. No manufacturing will make Australia totally dependent on other countries for manufactured goods, how hard is that to understand?
I don't think you can even get a Tesla over there.
toolpush wrote: So Rockman, are you hanging off buying your F-Truck, until they coming out in the EV version? lol
The problem, though, is that some versions of the new F-150 still don’t meet the government’s 2016 emission and fuel-economy mandates. What’s more, the hurdles get higher from here: By 2025, the targets will be much more stringent.
By 2020, Ford will have a hybrid pickup with batteries powerful enough for daily driving, CEO Mark Fields has said.
Ford also is testing a diesel-powered F-150, according to a video posted on Autoblog.com, and may add a 4-cylinder engine for the first time in the U.S., a person familiar with the plans said. That may be a hard sell on the farms and construction sites where Ford has championed big, powerful V-8s for decades.
ROCKMAN wrote:pusher - They can by all the Teslas they want in CA and it won't change a thing nationally: the per capita gasoline consumption there is already the lowest in the nation. In fact it is only 10% of the national weighted average.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_ga ... per-capita
Notice how a number of New England states are 10X or more higher then CA. Even the NY consumption is 7X greater. And it of course Texas is more then 11X higher.
toolpush wrote:I don't think you can even get a Tesla over there.
I saw my first Tesla about two weeks ago, so they must be available, but not many on the road. Yet to see a Leaf, or any other electric cars. Sydney taxis are changing over to Camry Hybrids, so the are plenty of them.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:ROCKMAN wrote:pusher - They can by all the Teslas they want in CA and it won't change a thing nationally: the per capita gasoline consumption there is already the lowest in the nation. In fact it is only 10% of the national weighted average.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/ene_ga ... per-capita
Notice how a number of New England states are 10X or more higher then CA. Even the NY consumption is 7X greater. And it of course Texas is more then 11X higher.
Well, I tried to post a detailed comment about this, but the site seems to have lost it via the Captcha check thing, so I'm not doing all that work again.
The gist is:
The figures for the bottom five states make NO sense to me. The gasoline consumption suddenly falls off a cliff relative to the other 46 listed states (DC listed as a state). Yet, the basic make-up of the states like CA and OH, with lots of cars, drivers, roads, cities, rural areas, traffic jams, etc. isn't REMOTELY different enough to make anything like a 10Xish difference vs. the average states.
So I'm calling "bogus data reporting" here, unless someone can enlighten me.
And I checked things like BEV sales in CA, and the numbers are well over an order of magnitude too small to cause that effect vs. the average state. And notice for the 46 state group, the range of figures isn't much over 2X.
If someone can explain what I'm missing here, I'm all ears.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:
If someone can explain what I'm missing here, I'm all ears.
Well even if it is in 42 gallon barrels it should read 7.904 million barrels. No idea what the extra b is for in bbl.ROCKMAN wrote:A minor correction: 1 barrel = 42 gallons.
And for bonus points: why is it "bbl" and not "bl"?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests