Dawg52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
You do realize that the people that designed this car are in all likelihood dead or at least long since retired now?
Their children could be working there.
You do realize that the people that designed this car are in all likelihood dead or at least long since retired now?
I always loved Volvo , had a 240 and a 760 Turbo . So easy to work on . I never heard of any electrical problems .
Right or wrong, some of us hold a grudge for a while. We got screwed by Volvo on a 1997 850GLT warranty flim flam and we're not ready to give Volvo another chance still. There are plenty of other good automakers.Dawg52 said:Worst car I have ever owned. Bought a brand new one in the 80's .........
You do realize that the people that designed this car are in all likelihood dead or at least long since retired now?
Ford nearly wiped them out, which is why they sold to Geely.
Since Geely bought Volvo, the brand has done a 180.
I'm considering an XC60 for my next car.
If you are up for adventure buy the car here in the states and go to Sweden to pick it up. Volvo pays airfare & 1 night in the (nice) hotel. Factory tour. We just got back. Well we have been back for a while. The car has been on the boat and finally caught up with me. I'm loving my V60 wagon. After touring the factory Mrs Scrapr is talking about her own Volvo Overseas Delivery
I have had really good luck with Volvo. I do a lot of driving. My 98 V70 wagon went to 289k miles. My XC90 SUV is still going strong at 313k miles.
If you are up for adventure buy the car here in the states and go to Sweden to pick it up.
Right or wrong, some of us hold a grudge for a while. We got screwed by Volvo on a 1997 850GLT warranty flim flam and we're not ready to give Volvo another chance still. There are plenty of other good automakers.
Seems there has been a good number of plants decommissioned....
I do find it interesting that the 'new' method is to entomb them!!! Yea, just bury it and forget about it....
New methods for decommissioning have been developed in order to minimize the usual high decommissioning costs. One of these methods is in situ decommissioning (ISD), meaning that the reactor is entombed instead of dismantled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
If you limit your automotive choice to companies that have never flim flam'd customers, you'll never buy another car.
If you limit your automotive choice to companies that have never flim flam'd customers, you'll never buy another car.
I can live with a brand that does not do well once... but I also take into consideration how they treat you when you have problems...
I had an 85 Mercury Cougar (Ford) and it had problems the whole time I had it... but I did really like the car... sold it after 10 years and 120K miles... but had many batteries and also kept paying to fix a stalling problem... after it was sold I get mail talking about a class action suit that Ford lost... seems they KNEW the problem of it stalling but never told anybody about it... even their dealerships to get it fixed...
This soured me on Ford... and it was also my 3rd Ford... the other two had a few problems but not as bad... I said I would not buy another...
Then my BIL died and I needed a vehicle so I bought his Ford Explorer... and it had many problems also... cost me big money to keep fixing the breakdowns.... after a couple of years decided to get rid of it....
Never again for a Ford...
In other news, Volvo files for bankruptcy in 2022........
Yes but the radioactive waste will last for thousands of years, much longer than the concrete, and the "surveillance" costs money. It's really just passing the buck to the future to pay for it.
T
Yes, you need to be careful. Just like you need to be careful with mercury and fly-ash produced by coal plants.
Here's the Editor's Note:Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]
*Editor's Note (12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J. P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL.
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
There are issues, but not for thousands of years, and certainly not with France since they use breeder reactors.
The longest lasting nuclear waste is actually mid-level nuclear waste, since that decays the slowest while still emitting high levels of radiation.
Yes, you need to be careful. Just like you need to be careful with mercury and fly-ash produced by coal plants.
I read that coal has extremely small amounts of radioactive material in it. Due the the massive amount of coal that a coal plant burns each year, it actually emits more radiation into the environment than a properly run nuke.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Here's the Editor's Note:
...
Volvo is a brand that's actually high fashion--and very high tech. I think they may be somewhat misunderstood vehicles because their dealer base is not better and dealers are usually in big cities. They were designed with a lot of though in mind, however. They especially make station wagons with great styling--very popular in yuppie cities.
"China’s real goal here is to reduce its strategic vulnerability to imported oil. By mandating a switch to electric cars, it’s essentially mandating a switch to a domestic fuel in plentiful supply, coal." Major victory for those concerned about greenhouse gases, right?
Right, we can get VW to do the emissions control design...........I would like to see more research put into small efficient diesels like they have overseas.
If your power needs are overcapacity today, it's prudent to cut the building rate for more. Doesn't mean a wholesale shift to other sources is occurring though non-fossil fuel is increasing in line with changes around the world. When they start reducing absolute amount of coal-generated power your claim will make sense. The point of their goal of getting around oil use stands.Well, yes and no. China is putting a lid on coal. Existing capacity will stay on-line and it's huge, but new capacity is being dramatically scaled back or outright canceled. Until a few years ago they were adding a coal plant per month, that's over and done with.
Instead, it's hard acceleration on solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.
While dependency on oil is a motivator, even more so is cleaning up (air) pollution. This is the real priority. If the central administration doesn't get their act together there they face civil unrest.
I read that coal has extremely small amounts of radioactive material in it. Due the the massive amount of coal that a coal plant burns each year, it actually emits more radiation into the environment than a properly run nuke.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Here's the Editor's Note: