4 ms·

Index funds

by fomine3 6y ago

Index funds

thekyle 6y ago
The vast majority of index funds don't buy IPOs
klipt 6y ago
Index funds will buy at the market value, no? Is the market still overvaluing oil given knowledge of renewables?
- ehnto 6y ago
  Renewables as a utility power source won't stop our reliance on oil. Fossil fuels like coal and natural gas are on the chopping board, but oil still has considerable permeation through our lives and a very large conversion cost and social inertia to overcome yet. Plastics, shipping fuels, many manufacturing processes use oil during manufacturing but perhaps not in the final product. Vehicles are still decades away from being replaced by EVs. The technology is all there and there are some "quick wins" coming around the corner I think. Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    > "Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example." This is one of those things that will not take off without government initiative - risky, expensive to invest and develop, regulatorily difficult. The payoff is potentially massove though Mind you the culture nees to change too, we've had quite a few ships seized by pirates or capsized because the crew was drunk
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    Most common plastics, that is, polyethylene, PVC, and polypropylene, can and often are produced from natural gas feedstock: many natural gas fields have abundant ethane, ethylene, and propane.
  - yourapostasy 6y ago
    > Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example. This comment sent me looking, and I didn't see anyone making any kind of move towards installing a regulatory environment that is conducive towards a "quick win" for nuclear-powered container ships. This Flexport article [1] was interesting, but didn't mention any such legislative moves afoot. This article [2] lays some numbers down. One way I can see to introduce and sustain nuclear-powered container vessels is to expand US naval shipyards that currently handle nuclear carrier and submarine construction to take on the container vessels' commissioning, refueling, maintenance, and decommissioning, design vessels with much longer service lifespans than current container ships to amortize the cost over a much longer period, standardize the power plants on existing designs, and carve out specially-secured multimodal ports with preferential rates for the nuclear-powered container vessels with much faster container moving infrastructure. In the US political-economic landscape, this would spread out the current military expenditures on the power plant R&D, manufacturing capex, and opex costs, into a wider market. It would be an interesting geopolitical power play a nation, if the nation subsidized from taxpayer funds the regulatory compliance and national flagging expenses, to make a play to dominate and control the global container shipping service market. Nearly half of container ship opex costs are fuel and port costs [3]. Subsidize away the ruinous regulatory and security compliance costs of nuclear, crater the existing bunker-fuel powered shipping market rates, and controlling global shipping could be wielded as a significant geopolitical tool. Certainly cheaper than the trillions spent on the US military, and delivers leverage at the logistical and supply chain level. I can easily see China do this too, especially with their OBOR initiative. If this came to pass by any nation, then I'm sure it would rightly alarm a lot of people and nations. [1] https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/ [2] https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/28/now-time-nuclear-cargo-shipping/ https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/28/now-time-nuclear-cargo-... [3] https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2250 https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2250
    - tomp 6y ago
      In your research, did you find out that nuclear-powered ships are actually cheaper (i.e. combined cost of fuel, personnel & maintenance connected with the nuclear reactor)? Because obviously the primary goal of the military isn't cost-saving, it's having subs & aircraft carriers that can stay sea-borne indefinitely. So they'd be using them even if they're actually (much) more expensive

Index funds

thekyle 6y ago

The vast majority of index funds don't buy IPOs

klipt 6y ago

Index funds will buy at the market value, no? Is the market still overvaluing oil given knowledge of renewables?

ehnto 6y ago
Renewables as a utility power source won't stop our reliance on oil. Fossil fuels like coal and natural gas are on the chopping board, but oil still has considerable permeation through our lives and a very large conversion cost and social inertia to overcome yet. Plastics, shipping fuels, many manufacturing processes use oil during manufacturing but perhaps not in the final product. Vehicles are still decades away from being replaced by EVs. The technology is all there and there are some "quick wins" coming around the corner I think. Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  > "Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example." This is one of those things that will not take off without government initiative - risky, expensive to invest and develop, regulatorily difficult. The payoff is potentially massove though Mind you the culture nees to change too, we've had quite a few ships seized by pirates or capsized because the crew was drunk
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Most common plastics, that is, polyethylene, PVC, and polypropylene, can and often are produced from natural gas feedstock: many natural gas fields have abundant ethane, ethylene, and propane.
- yourapostasy 6y ago
  > Container shipping switching to nuclear would be a quick change once regulations are in place for one example. This comment sent me looking, and I didn't see anyone making any kind of move towards installing a regulatory environment that is conducive towards a "quick win" for nuclear-powered container ships. This Flexport article [1] was interesting, but didn't mention any such legislative moves afoot. This article [2] lays some numbers down. One way I can see to introduce and sustain nuclear-powered container vessels is to expand US naval shipyards that currently handle nuclear carrier and submarine construction to take on the container vessels' commissioning, refueling, maintenance, and decommissioning, design vessels with much longer service lifespans than current container ships to amortize the cost over a much longer period, standardize the power plants on existing designs, and carve out specially-secured multimodal ports with preferential rates for the nuclear-powered container vessels with much faster container moving infrastructure. In the US political-economic landscape, this would spread out the current military expenditures on the power plant R&D, manufacturing capex, and opex costs, into a wider market. It would be an interesting geopolitical power play a nation, if the nation subsidized from taxpayer funds the regulatory compliance and national flagging expenses, to make a play to dominate and control the global container shipping service market. Nearly half of container ship opex costs are fuel and port costs [3]. Subsidize away the ruinous regulatory and security compliance costs of nuclear, crater the existing bunker-fuel powered shipping market rates, and controlling global shipping could be wielded as a significant geopolitical tool. Certainly cheaper than the trillions spent on the US military, and delivers leverage at the logistical and supply chain level. I can easily see China do this too, especially with their OBOR initiative. If this came to pass by any nation, then I'm sure it would rightly alarm a lot of people and nations. [1] https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/ [2] https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/28/now-time-nuclear-cargo-shipping/ https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/28/now-time-nuclear-cargo-... [3] https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2250 https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2250
  - tomp 6y ago
    In your research, did you find out that nuclear-powered ships are actually cheaper (i.e. combined cost of fuel, personnel & maintenance connected with the nuclear reactor)? Because obviously the primary goal of the military isn't cost-saving, it's having subs & aircraft carriers that can stay sea-borne indefinitely. So they'd be using them even if they're actually (much) more expensive