Bee's "Ignoring Energy Transition Realities as We Greenify" discussion is important, and addresses quite a number of aspects which I will not discuss here.
I've taken the unusual step of opening a separate "chapter" on this subject, so to speak, because it seems to me that we, as a nation, are blithely stepping off a cliff without a whole lot of contemplation of the rocky landscape below.
Bee's discussion, like most others on this subject, makes some assumptions that I seriously question. Those assumptions go to the very heart of the issue: is it even realistically possible to have this electric "Greenification"?

***************************************************************************
As I write this, the last post in Bee's discussion is from kings53man, who contemplates a comforting scene of "thousands/M of electric vehicles [charging] in the night". This is absolutely not to poke fun at kings53man, because his scene is actually a pretty common picture promoted by the Green folks.
Now, before the bricks start flying, let's establish this: I fully understand the climate dilemma, agree that humans likely are major contributors to the problem, and that "something" major needs to be done, and soon.
What I have a great problem with are some of the blithe assumptions seemingly thrown out as "solutions", with little or no challenge from the standpoint of practicality. To keep things reasonably easy to contemplate, let's confine our picture to the United States.
OK, postulate that in "x" number of years no more internal engine vehicles are going to be produced. Anyone wanting a vehicle will need to be driving electrics. Fine... one problem solved.
Energy. It comes in lots of different packages. To list just four: coal, natural/synthetic gas, gasoline/diesel, electricity. To help visualize the issue, consider each energy package as a number of boxes- that number being relative to the amount of each being currently used. The total amount of energy needed is equal to the volume of all of the various boxes.
Keeping things simple, lets assume that one box of energy is equal to any other box of energy, and that any kind of box may be transported over any kind of energy distribution network: a mental picture of boxes being transported across the country through trucks and tankers, or more weirdly, shoving their way through pipelines and thin electric grid wires.
Now, the reality is that all of the presently existing energy transportation networks are pretty close to operational capacity. There's simply not a huge amount of extra room just waiting to be used on the existing electric grids or fuel pipelines.
***************************************************************************
OK, coal is obviously a loser, and can be replaced for the most part by natural gas. So that means more boxes of natural gas, fewer of coal. This is actually under way, and seems pretty easy.
BUT: natural gas is now deemed unacceptable also, and the proposed premise is to substitute boxes of electricity. Now things are getting a bit more complicated. First of all, the electrical distribution grids of the United States do not have the capacity to transmit a significant additional number of energy boxes.
Let's step back for a moment and try to visualize a couple of huge mountains of energy boxes. First, those boxes needed to support our national vehicle fleets. Second, the boxes needed to supply heating and cooking for homes and workplaces. It's being proposed that all of those boxes are to be transported somehow over our already stressed electric grids. To me, this is a typical picture of political operators who haven't the faintest idea of the actual practical realities of electrical transmission. Very much like the politicians who are responsible for the Texas power grid network.
Let's think for a moment about the actual efficiency of various energy types. Yes, electricity can certainly be used to generate heat, and fairly easily too. Unfortunately, it takes significantly more than one box of electricity to equal the heat energy in one box of natural gas energy. In other words, electricity is simply less efficient than natural gas to transport or generate heat.
Well, that's something that obviously needs more thought, so let's look instead at vehicles. Again, to keep things fairly simple, let's ignore large trucks and similar equipment, and just consider the average automotive vehicle.
OK, first, lets look at the mountain of energy boxes now supplied by gasoline or diesel fuels, and try to visualize those boxes also being stuffed through the national electric energy distribution systems. H'mmm- that's quite a puzzler also. Existing grids were largely built when the country was less populated, and it was a lot easier to construct major infrastructure without lawsuits and protests. Not suggesting that situation was ideal- simply stating a fact.
When pundits and promoters talk about the "electric grid system", most of us compose a mental picture of huge steel pylons with heavy electric wires marching across the land. We think something like "well, those really aren't all that pretty, but then the odds of having one of those in my backyard are pretty slim, and most of that stuff is someplace else anyway".
Really? The next time you're out and about take a moment and look at the wiring on any overhead electric distribution system. Try to imagine having to either replace most of those wires with much thicker wires, or alternately, to double or triple the number of wires. Take a close look at some of those power poles, and note the large metal enclosures which are mounted there. Those are transformers, and they will also need to be either much larger, or have many more of them. Speaking of the power poles themselves- do you notice that many of them are already pretty full of stuff, and that there really isn't a lot of room for more stuff?
Well, perhaps you're fortunate, and live in a nice middle-class area where everything is neatly underground and out of sight. Sorry- get prepared for a lot of digging and streetwork- all of those systems will need substantial upgrades also.
Wow! And how exactly is all of this going to be paid for?
***************************************************************************
Well, let's assume some sort of miracle on that, and consider how each new electric vehicle is actually going to receive it's energy packages via the grid.
Right! We're back to looking at "thousands/M of electric vehicles will charge in the night". Sounds easy enough. It's not too difficult to image a cozy scene of middle-class detached homes with one or two electric vehicles happily guzzling boxes of electric energy while their owners sleep away the night. OK, that's under control.
But what about the huge number of Americans who live in apartments, multi-family housing, or who need to park their vehicles on the street because they don't have suitable garage space?
And, thinking about this a little more, exactly what kind of plugs and extension cords will all of this need? The present vehicle charging systems don't just plug into the nearest 120 volt outlet with a #14 extension cord from Home Depot. No, each charging station needs to be installed with a power source that is pretty heavy-duty and able to handle the increased load.
Has anyone, anywhere, even begun to think through the financial implications of any of this? We have a substantial percentage of Americans who even now can barely keep food on the table. And they are going to have to install an expensive charging system in older homes which would need significant wiring upgrades to even accommodate this?
So now we are telling those people "sorry- but having a vehicle is just for the better-off folks"?
***************************************************************************
I've deliberately only touched on a few of the aspects of this whole thing. Having spent much of my career in electronics, I naturally tend to look at things from a somewhat technical point of view, and fully understand that others may not do so. But, as demonstrated here in California, and also so very recently in Texas, placing ignorant political activists of any persuasion in charge of problems requiring some degree of interest in and understanding of technical reality is not particularly helpful.

Thanks @Sven and @Baseball_Fan for the comments.

” I never quite understand gold as an investment ... “

@Sven - I doubt very many, including myself, understand how it behaves. It’s always had kind of a “doomsday” following (the end of civilization crowd). I think the wild swings are associated with very large holders “playing” the market. Likely these guys (hedge funds, etc.) are making money whether the price rises or falls. They’re loaded with algorithms and smart traders able to predict what we Tom Dick and Harry are likely to do - in the same way professional gamblers know how to game the system and take advantage of the unsophisticated. (Remember we’re talking about a relatively narrow market.)
Personally, I’ve had a mild fascination with the metals since the 80’s when gold shot up from around $100 to $800 in a few years. That was a period of double-digit inflation which I’ve never forgotten. 14% mortgages on new homes were common. The items in your shopping cart sometimes increased in price before you got to the checkout. Of course, it’s said that investors often fight “the last war.”
The best arguments I hear are that the central banks are debasing the currencies and eventually will get caught between “a rock and a hard place” - unable to support the equity and bond markets any longer. Gold may benefit. So might baseball cards, rare art and antique autos. Most of my holdings are pretty mundane. So, a small weighting to a mining fund does add some “sparkle.” Nothing wrong with gambling a bit with a small part of your holdings IMHO - and while doing so you might learn something that helps you longer term.
@Sven - I’m surprised at the recent success of PRPFX. Hard to explain. Of course this one tends to swing up and down, with investors rushing in at the highs and bailing out at the lows. 5-6 years ago you would have had a hard time giving it away on this board. (I’ve long owned the fund).

So .. I think we can all agree without fed stimulus, handouts etc, we'd likely see another great depression. Might see one eventually after fed says no more. Where does this sheet show leave us?
Many think over next 10 years we'll be lucky to see 1% returns in stock market
Do you know of any 10year single A bonds that are paying over 2%?
Hide out there and in tbills, waiting for the cathie Wood tesla stock market crash
Timing market yes, but better than losing 25% in two weeks time
Posting for entertainment purposes only. Due your own due diligence
Good luck to all,
Baseball Fan

Very recently, the 10-year T has been the hot topic. Rising rates, so other stuff gets shuffled around or actually suffers, performance-wise. I like to take a long-term view, for planning purposes. I do my homework, choosing funds. Bond funds I own:
PTIAX 5.03% over the past 5 years, and 5.5% over the past 10 yrs.
PRSNX 6.03% past 5 yrs, and 4.7% = past 10 years.
RPSIX 5.66% = 5 years and 4.6%= 10 years.
********************************************
Bonds are not stocks. Whether up or down, they don't typically roil the portfolio, the way some specialty stock funds do. I like them because they are doing quite nicely even IN a near-zero interest rate environment. I won't ever hold complicated instruments like double-inverse options. I like plain vanilla. The last time I was able to find a simple, plain vanilla bond offering at a rate over 5.5% was in 2003, when I bought a 10-year Israel "zero," purchased and denominated in dollars. Nearly doubled my money, in 2013, when it matured. I won't buy them anymore due to Israeli political policies. And last time I checked, they're not offering those good rates anymore, anyhow.

@JonGaltIII et al
I''m not pushing having bond investments. Too many variables for each individual. The write is about a simple 50/50 of equity and bonds over time.
I offer this real world example starting in 2006, and will provide the past 10 years return.
A 529 educational account was established in 2006 with the state of Utah; using Vanguard funds. One may pick an established blend from aggressive-conservative, as set by choices offered by the 529; or one may "build" there own. Please keep in mind that until a few years ago, one could only change the investments 1 time per year. This limitation is now 2 times per year. So, one is at an almost "set and forget it" mode.
We set our own, being 50/50 with VITPX and VBMPX. The expense ratio for the funds are .02 and .03%. VITPX holds 3,400 equities and VBMPX holds 18,000 bonds. YOW !!!
The 50/50 ratio is required to auto balance once per year. So, the ratio has never traveled to far outside of 50/50.
The 10 year total return for this blend of 2 funds is 8.705%.
I've used FBALX as a benchmark for our own investments to discover how much of a smart arse or dumb arse we may be at any given time. FBALX is high on the list of balanced funds in it's category.
FBALX has a 10 year annualized return of 10.83%.
The overview for us being that the 529 is doing well as a quasi conservative/moderate allocation blend.
Most folks should be very pleased if they can obtain ongoing returns that meet or exceed 8% on an annualized basis. Many trained professionals do not.
Okay. Away soon to have a very small tubular rod placed into the upper arm and move a bit of vaccine into the muscle. #2 it is.

@catch22 I should have qualified it with "compared to the S&P 500 index". Not necessarily a fair comparison - just a competely different strategy. Invest in equity vs. bonds. Appreciate the responses to this thread and learning different rationale. I'll let others provide some chart its.
Someone recently sent me a link to a discussion Dave Ramsey was having on "not holding bond funds" and what he believes about proper allocation. I think it's worth a listen (even as it's simplistic and controversial) - he draws a correlation between average life expectancy and what those bond funds can/can't do for you between retirement 65-90 years of age: htt
ps://youtu.be/yqMCTSnJ6Y4?t=5169 I would argue that his "growth and income fund" does indeed contain some bonds.
Note: I added two spaces between htt and p so that you could copy and paste. When it embeds in this post - it doesn't fast forward to the spot in the clip where he talks about allocation.

Bond funds are essential to most portfolios unless you have the stomach for watching your life savings cut by 50% at any given point in time (as per VTI). Of course as interest rates rise many bond funds won't do well but some will do just fine (e.g., DHHIX, FAGIX). So, in part it depends on what you mean by "bond fund." I like to hold about half in funds (mostly high yield) that will largely follow equities but with less SD, and half with things that will lose as interest rates rise but will likely act as a counterbalance to an equity decline (e.g GIBLX). Also, not to state the obvious, but the idea that interest rates must go up has been a losers bet for years. I saw Minerd on CNBC yesterday who is rather confident interest rates will be going down, a lot. No investment can work in every environment and trying to time which will work best and when has also been a sucker's play for the most part.

Hi @JonGaltIII

but for the last 10 + years it was a bad mistake

I'll play "chart it". Give me 5 bond fund tickers that you're not happy about over the past 10 years. They don't have to be anything you hold or have held. What would you prefer to be charted as a baseline, the comparative? A balanced fund, a blended equity fund?
And yes indeed, there have been and will be bond funds that are never properly managed or the mandate tended to be out of favor for too long.
Not any different than equity funds that look good as a concept but timing or management get things wrong.
'Course, what one is attempting to do with a bond fund is critical, too; relative to a total portfolio.
Take care,
Catch

Because year after year my bond funds have done well and continue to do well. In some years there have been losses of less than 2%. These losses are more than made up for in the next year with gains of 7 or 8 or 9%. For years now experts are saying bonds will lose money and yet my bond funds and the bond portions of two balanced funds are doing fine. Or they sure seem to be doing fine.

I’m just slow to change. 20 years ago bond funds comprised 30% of my portfolio. Than 10 years ago it went to 25%. This year I cut it to 20%. Oh - I’ll get down to 0 eventually ...
Of course, if you sell those bond funds you need to move the $$ into something else. So those much smarter than me here can comment on where to move that money. I’m not convinced cash today will beat even the very low returns of short duration bonds.
Yes - you can bury your money in a tin can in the back yard. I suppose. Or, on a wing and a prayer , you can throw everything at stocks - even though you’re nearing 80. Stretching out the time horizon is an option. Maybe to 95? Or 110? Doing so would allow you to maintain a higher level of portfolio risk.

With interest rates and yields where they are ... why own them?
With Bonds... are you/we managing for the exception vs. the rule? I'm starting to believe we are. I own several bond funds JIC (just in case) - but for the last 10 + years it was a bad mistake. Perhaps Buffett is correct: "Bonds are not the place to be these days...” in his recent annual letter. So - asking the community here: Why are we smarter than Buffett?
With bonds barely outpacing or not outpacing inflation... even those focused only on income -why would you or do you own them? https://www.theceomagazine.com/business/finance/berkshire-hathaway-warren-buffett/
This is a person I follow and offers somewhat of an explanation why I have a "limited" exposure to bond funds: https://ofdollarsanddata.com/why-buy-bonds-now/ <--- That said, it still begs the question on whether we are managing for the exception vs. the norm. "Returns for the next decade are looking grim" says the author.
Edit: Adding this link: https://www.captrust.com/even-with-low-interest-rates-your-portfolio-still-needs-bonds/
Reading this post promoting diversification with bond funds ... it contains so many caveats "Given our lower-for-longer view on interest rates, our expectation for bond returns over the next few years is muted." + "With interest rates near zero and unlikely to move much in the foreseeable future, performance prospects for high-quality fixed income look unappealing." ... It's enought to confuse even the brightest investor.

There are so many kernels of wisdom in this post. I hope everyone keeps posting and sharing their viewpoint. I hold a few similar funds of @stillers but its so interesting to see peoples approach to choosing funds. Like @WABAC - ER is important to me as well. So - different strokes for different folks. But - starting the post and then the comments are so worthwhile. Plus - they have the added benefit of 3 years from now - someone searches up IQDAX - they will see what people were thinking.

Aside from the environmental waste disposal problem and labor/community radiation exposure problem, the cost advantages of nuclear don't appear to be there. From the previous link:

Existing nuclear plants have relatively low operation, maintenance, and fuel costs compared to many fossil fuel plants; however these routine costs still make nuclear power economically uncompetitive in comparison with natural gas, wind, and solar.
New nuclear plants are another matter altogether; their continuing high construction costs make them uneconomical. Between 2002 and 2008, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In reality, even those astronomical projections have been surpassed. The two new units at the Vogtle Plant in Georgia, the only new nuclear construction in the United States, are now years behind schedule and projected to cost more than twice their original budget of $14 billion. Similarly, it was estimated that Duke Energy’s proposed Levy County Nuclear Power Plant in Florida would cost $5 billion, but projections ballooned to $22 billion. The project was canceled in 2017, and Duke Energy decided to focus on solar energy expansion instead.
Reactors also typically require a long period of planning, licensing, and building. The 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for nuclear reactors worldwide was just under 10 years.
The WSINR report also estimates that the cost of generating nuclear energy ranges between $112 and $189 per megawatt-hour (MWh), while solar power costs between $36 and $44 and onshore wind power comes in at $29 to $56.

But we're really not discussing the thing that I find most worrisome: if banks in major Western democracies have no use for cash, what does that imply about the viability of cash as a trading medium? I believe that never before in my 81 years has such a situation existed, certainly not here in the US.
Isn't there a distinct danger that at some point other financial entities would begin to feel the same way? And if something like that gets started, wouldn't there be an almost immediate run-for-the-door panic? And actually, where would anyone run to?
It seems to me that the entire financial value system as we have known it is tottering on a very dangerous balance point.
I know that many of you are much more financially astute that me, and I'd really appreciate your comments on all of this.
OJ

Thanks for a good share. I have FBNDX and barely holding PONAX. It feels like a contrarian view to hold bonds these days/years.

These-bond-funds-and-bond-etfs-are-now-among-your-best-choices

the most widely owned bond fund category, intermediate term funds, often called "core" funds, have generally averaged more than 6% annualized over the last two years. Not bad, especially as compared to money market funds which barely returned more than 1%.
But just as for stocks, future bond fund performance is very hard to predict. Therefore, rather than trying to guess which way interest rates will now be headed, it makes sense to merely try to invest in the best bond funds one can find based on a variety of important criteria. But searching out such bond funds can be tedious. So, in this article, I have done my best to simply the process for investors.

Banks in Germany Tell Customers to Take Deposits Elsewhere
Below are a few edited excerpts from a current article in the Wall Street Journal:

Interest rates have been negative in Europe for years. But it took the flood of savings unleashed in the pandemic for banks finally to charge depositors in earnest.
Germany’s biggest lenders have told new customers since last year to pay a 0.5% annual rate to keep large sums of money with them. That is creating an unusual incentive, where banks that usually want deposits as an inexpensive form of financing, are essentially telling customers to go away.
The pandemic has changed the equation. Savings rates skyrocketed with consumers at home. And huge relief programs from the ECB have flooded banks with excess deposits. Banks also have used the economic dislocation of the pandemic to make operational changes they have long resisted.
According to price-comparison portal Verivox, 237 banks in Germany currently charge negative interest rates to private customers, up from 57 before the pandemic hit in March of last year. Charges range between 0.4% and 0.6% for deposits beginning anywhere from €25,000 to €100,000.
The ECB’s deposit rate, which it charges banks, is minus 0.5%. The central bank has signaled it is unlikely to change that level anytime soon.
Banks in Germany are particularly hit by negative rates because Germans are big savers. About 30% of all household deposits in the eurozone are in Germany, according to the ECB. Last year, deposits in the country rose 6% to a record €2.55 trillion as people became wary of spending under the pandemic or simply had nowhere to spend, with restaurants closed and travel restricted.
In Denmark, where interest rates were cut to below zero two years before the eurozone, banks have gone from charging wealthier clients to smaller ones over the past year. The Danish central bank estimates about a quarter of the country’s depositors are currently being affected.
Nordea Bank Abp recently lowered the deposit threshold for a 0.75% charge to 250,000 danish krone, equivalent to $41,000, from 750,000 danish krone as the pandemic will likely prolong the era of negative rates.
The flip side for customers there, is that in some cases, while they pay to deposit money, they don’t have to pay anything to borrow. Nordea in January started offering 20-year mortgages at 0%.

Linking some analysis from today. (Published before the price turned and headed south again.)
LINK
Hard to figure out. It’s a rocky investment most of the time and hasn’t done as well as equities over the years. Still, some find it appealing as a small holding in a diversified portfolio. Others have an almost spiritual fascination with it and have loaded up mightily.
- Rising interest rates tend to spook metals markets.
- Perceptions the Fed will keep rates very low tend to support metals markets.
- The bitcoin craze has, as others noted, impacted the metals markets for the worse.
It should be noted that metals & miners did very well during 2019-20. Some mining funds sported one year gains of around 50%. To some extent, dues are being paid today for that immense run-up.
LINK to miners ETF (shows current price)

There is a lot more information in Buffett's interview with respect to bonds in general.

“Bonds are not the place to be these days,” Buffett said. “Fixed-income investors worldwide – whether pension funds, insurance companies or retirees – face a bleak future.”
Buffett noted that the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield had fallen drastically to 0.93% at the end of 2020 from 15.8% in September 1981. Meanwhile, investors earn a negative return on trillions of dollars of sovereign debt in Germany and Japan, he added.

If US investment opportunties are so great, why is he buying back $9 billion worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock? The answer is that he have had hard time buying them within his metrics and this is consistent with his investment pattern for a number of years. Recent purchase in drug and telecommunication stocks is a reflection of his forward looking view in post-pandemic scenario.
In addition, Buffet also made many mistakes just like other investors or fund managers. His value investment approach exposes him to the value-trap stocks. At least he owed up to his mistakes and moved on.
https://reuters.com/article/us-berkshire-buffett-precisioncastparts/warren-buffetts-10-billion-mistake-precision-castparts-idUSKCN2AR0MZ

“Whoa. A lot to unpack there” - Not really. It’s just one of a half-dozen different market takes Barron’s typically presents from a variety of different sources in a small section of the magazine each week. More, I think, to give a flavor of the kinds of questions advisors are batting around (to borrow your spring training metaphor) than to provide any definitive or accurate point of view.
“But I hear the GOP wants to position itself ... ” - OK

Oh, I get that.
Among other things I was thinking about putting Reagan and Volker in the same basket after packing the 50's and 60's into the same bear market as the 70's. And that whole four decade bull was pretty much treading water for 13-14 years after the dot com bust. At some point the market became Friedman's, and now seems to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fed.
Took my brain a while to boil it down to a paragraph.
Rest assured that my opinions are neither definitive nor accurate. ;-)
Spring training game today. First Moderna shot on Monday morning.