As someone who works in O&G and is 100% not in favor of most the green new policies, it's far more complicated than this. They aren't necessarily in the situation they are in because of green energy. They're where they are because of reliance on petrostates, specifically Russia. Now, you and I say well diversify and build infrastructure to more petrostates or build that internal infrastructure vs. relying on one petrostate that has historically been a loose cannon, but others see that as more reason to go down the road of green energy. And they aren't necessarily wrong.LOYAL AG said:
It's anyone's guess what the rest of this decade holds. The green energy movement has put Europe in a very precarious position this coming winter with their determination to replace reliable energy with unreliable energy that's often a bad fit for the nations that have deployed those solutions. Solar and wind will never work in Germany, for example. The result of those poor decisions is what we're seeing play out now, energy costs are soaring and consumers are being forced to prioritize energy and food over all else. It's going to be a very long winter over there.
I think we're going to see recession in the consumer markets as inflation forces consumers to pull back and explosion in anything related to industrialization, ie commercial construction. China is collapsing and manufacturing is leaving that country at an accelerating pace and all that activity has to find a home. Your targets are other Asian nations like Viet Nam and North America meaning Mexico and the US. That has to happen, there's no other outcome. Recessions don't last forever but the collapse of Chinese manufacturing will define the rest of this decade.
htxag09 said:As someone who works in O&G and is 100% not in favor of most the green new policies, it's far more complicated than this. They aren't necessarily in the situation they are in because of green energy. They're where they are because of reliance on petrostates, specifically Russia. Now, you and I say well diversify and build infrastructure to more petrostates or build that internal infrastructure vs. relying on one petrostate that has historically been a loose cannon, but others see that as more reason to go down the road of green energy. And they aren't necessarily wrong.LOYAL AG said:
It's anyone's guess what the rest of this decade holds. The green energy movement has put Europe in a very precarious position this coming winter with their determination to replace reliable energy with unreliable energy that's often a bad fit for the nations that have deployed those solutions. Solar and wind will never work in Germany, for example. The result of those poor decisions is what we're seeing play out now, energy costs are soaring and consumers are being forced to prioritize energy and food over all else. It's going to be a very long winter over there.
I think we're going to see recession in the consumer markets as inflation forces consumers to pull back and explosion in anything related to industrialization, ie commercial construction. China is collapsing and manufacturing is leaving that country at an accelerating pace and all that activity has to find a home. Your targets are other Asian nations like Viet Nam and North America meaning Mexico and the US. That has to happen, there's no other outcome. Recessions don't last forever but the collapse of Chinese manufacturing will define the rest of this decade.
If they are able to build that infrastructure, they will have energy independence. And some of these countries don't have the resources to have energy dependence via fossil fuels.
Either way, strides are being made in solar and even battery storage. Green movement isn't going away so they need to learn where that balance is until technological advances are made.
I read last week that France alone is starting back up a crap load of reactors that had recently been mothballed, mainly due to the natural gas crisis.htxag09 said:
I was actually just at a conference yesterday and they said in Europe that nuclear was down 12% from the first half of 22 vs 21. Hydro was down 20%. Gas was up 4% which made it the primary source of power in Europe, even with the higher prices.
Quote:
The hot weather hitting Europe this week is set to reduce power output from France's fleet of nuclear reactors, risking even higher electricity prices as the continent endures its worst energy crunch in decades.
Warm temperatures in the Garonne River mean that production restrictions are likely at the Golfech nuclear plant in the south of the country from Thursday, Electricite de France SA said in a filing with grid operator RTE.
Quote:
The reduction is another blow to EDF, whose 56 reactors -- vital to Europe's power supplies -- are already operating at about half their capacity because of maintenance and checks. The utility has estimated that output this year will be the lowest in more than 30 years, meaning neighboring countries may have to seek alternative sources to keep the lights on.
EDF Expects Nuclear Output Cuts in Summer on Low River Level
htxag09 said:
But 200% investing in what? Hydro is down this year because low river flows. For the same reason, nuclear is also down this year. Where they are, they're going to have to rely on Petro states that have risk associated with them, Russia, ME, hopefully Egypt, etc.
I absolutely agree they went way too far in the solar and wind bucket and aren't getting the returns needed. But European counties that took a little more balanced of an approach are in very similar situations.
One issue in play here is that they've really only ever raised prices over the last several years. They've become quite expensive for many companies who have relied on FedEx or UPS as their shipper. Shippers are desperate for alternatives to both of them.Ag CPA said:
The question is how much of this is due to the economy and how much is on FedEx itself, it is not an efficient operation and they have had execution issues in the past. The CEO was saying it is 70 macro/ 30 company but people are thinking it is probably skewed more towards the company.
Have actually heard customers complain about this and think it's a real issue.Bobcat-Ag said:
I've had some issues with their service recently, like multiple late deliveries, not having good estimates for deliveries. I think it's possible, that there technology is getting old. UPS does not seem to have the same issues.
File5 said:
Where do you see nuclear being down? Was not aware it was so reliant on water supply, although I realize it requires water for the steam cycle and whatnot. Wonder if what you're seeing is reactor design related, and a reason to move to more closed loop systems.
STP cooling reservoir is sized for 4 units, 7000 acres. Almost 4 miles across it.flyingaggie12 said:
Water temps at STNP gotta be getting high up there during the summer. I haven't really heard of issues with that.
But I agree we need Nuclear bad.
htxag09 said:
But 200% investing in what? Hydro is down this year because low river flows. For the same reason, nuclear is also down this year. Where they are, they're going to have to rely on Petro states that have risk associated with them, Russia, ME, hopefully Egypt, etc.
I absolutely agree they went way too far in the solar and wind bucket and aren't getting the returns needed. But European counties that took a little more balanced of an approach are in very similar situations.
In my opinion, it is a lot on Fedex's operation. When given a choice of my carrier as well as when I ship myself, I choose UPS. I very rarely get the same Fedex driver on this semi-rural route. I feel fortunate when I get a shipment on the day it is "Out for Delivery". Last week a box was due on Friday and never arrived. Late that night someone entered on their system " couldn't find that address". It showed up the next day but the driver said the Friday driver quit halfway thru the route.Ag CPA said:
The question is how much of this is due to the economy and how much is on FedEx itself, it is not an efficient operation and they have had execution issues in the past. The CEO was saying it is 70 macro/ 30 company but people are thinking it is probably skewed more towards the company.
oklaunion said:In my opinion, it is a lot on Fedex's operation. When given a choice of my carrier as well as when I ship myself, I choose UPS. I very rarely get the same Fedex driver on this semi-rural route. I feel fortunate when I get a shipment on the day it is "Out for Delivery". Last week a box was due on Friday and never arrived. Late that night someone entered on their system " couldn't find that address". It showed up the next day but the driver said the Friday driver quit halfway thru the route.Ag CPA said:
The question is how much of this is due to the economy and how much is on FedEx itself, it is not an efficient operation and they have had execution issues in the past. The CEO was saying it is 70 macro/ 30 company but people are thinking it is probably skewed more towards the company.
I know both UPS drivers we get out here. Seldom anyone but those 2.
Aust Ag said:
Seems these carriers activity would be a harbinger of things to come....how are they doing?
