Slashdot Mirror
Germany Finances Major Push Into Home Battery Storage For Solar
mdsolar writes with this bit of news from Green Tech Media "The German government has responded to the next big challenge in its energy transition – storing the output from the solar boom it has created — by doing exactly what it has successfully done to date: greasing the wheels of finance to bring down the cost of new technology. ... Now it is looking at bringing down the cost of the next piece in the puzzle of its energy transition — battery storage. ... KfW’s aim, according to Axel Nawrath, a member of the KfW Bankengruppe executive board, is to ensure that the output of wind and solar must be 'more decoupled' from the grid. ... This is seen as critical as the level of renewable penetration rises to around 40 per cent — a level expected in Germany within the next 10 years. ... According to Papenfuss, households participating in the scheme will spend between €20,000 and €28,000 on solar and storage, depending on the size of the system (the average size is expected to be around 7kW for the solar array and around 4kWh for the battery)."
Stuffing everyone's basements full of LiPo batteries is just a disaster waiting to happen.
imagine 4KWh of lead-acid batteries. that is going to be so much
better for the environment!
captcha: redneck (guilty)
I had five kids, and now you tell me I can't count on them? Dammit!
Depends on how you spend the money.
Generalizing is always wrong. No government has 100% failure rate at anything. That said, a subsidy aimed at reducing the technological debt is very helpful in introducing new technology and competition.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Been saying we should have started doing this in the USA two decades ago when i worked home construction.
Every one of those subdivision mcmansion homes we have built should have come with a solar panel on the roof and 2 volt battery array.
We built MILLIONS of them. Hell the people buying 40k homes for 200k+ you could have even sold it to them as a 'feature' and not subsidize it at all.
Between that and all the big box stores having an array on the roof. We could be powering half the entire country by solar now. And it would have cost less than a month of one of our 'wars'.
But no. Because socialisim or something. Or no wait. Solar is for hippies. Or no wait.. It's expensive. Or no wait. Solar sucks. Or no wait whats the excuse of the day now?
We're dumb.
I agree with the general drive towards decoupling immediate production vs. use with better energy storage, but even with improved battery technology, everyone having batteries in their house is a particularly inefficient (and high-maintenance) way of doing it. Better approaches need quite large sinks for excess energy. For example, pumped-storage hydro is good for very large amounts. For medium-sized amounts, especially transient spikes, Denmark is experimenting with (PDF) dumping the excess production into district heating, since the heat reservoir handles fluctuations better than the grid does.
Better prediction and integration between sources can also help. For example, Denmark is largely managing its fluctuating wind energy these days not by literally storing it, but by predicting much of the variation, and offsetting discretionary production within the integrated Nordic energy market. What mostly happens is that on high-wind days, Sweden and Norway just reduce production at their hydro plants, and use the excess Danish wind power instead. In a sense the excess wind therefore gets stored as potential energy in the hydro reservoirs, but just by not producing the hydro in the first place, rather than pump-storage.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Unfortunately, that's been ineffective: costs for solar have come down no faster than they would have without German government intervention. Also at EU 20-28k, you can pay for decades of electricity usage, and that's not even taking into account maintenance. Waste of money.
Molten Batteries
I was surprised to learn that the concept behind molten batteries originated in Germany with the V1. MIT and Dr Sadoway have a battery system that is supposed to be available 2014. If it was invented in Germany and has since been used for ICBMs and ordinance. Seems odd that it has taken almost 70 years to come full circle.
China will do what they did with solar, which is acquire western tech, and then subsidize and dump on Germany.
If Germany really wants to do this right, they will block ALL energy storage from China. Heck, the fact that they manipulate their money against the Euro and USD should be more than enough of a subsidy to trigger this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
wind is already cheaper in America than everything except for hydro, geo-thermal, and nat. gas (and in that order). And in some places, they do not have much of those 3, but have wind, so those areas are in fact, ordering wind. Even here in Colorado, Xcell is installing multiple nat. gas power plants, but they are installing several new wind power parks because they KNOW that nat. gas prices will go up.
And as to batteries, eos energy storage is already the lowest going, and they are below the costs of a nat. gas plant.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
yeah, it is not like coal, oil, nukes, hydro, trains, planes, space crafts, cars/roads, electrification, telephony, etc ever got a hand out from a gov, esp. the American federal or state govs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Where would you put this set of battery cells? I'm guessing it's not going to be something the size of a car battery... probably won't be able to store it in the basement in case it floods or the attic due to weight. So do German's have a extra space in their garage for something that may take up the floor space of a water heater or furnace?
I keep a very clean and organized garage and I'd have trouble storing another lawn mower or installing another water heater/washer/clothesdryer.
Where did you pick up that opinion ? I can't think of a more reliable power grid. Living in Germany most part of my life (40+) I have never seen a brown-out nor a black-out here, except when a excavator damaged a big power line in the neighborhood. On the other hand working and vacationing in the USA, I have seen a number of brown-outs and I escaped the Northeast blackout of 2003 by sheer luck by a few hours flying west.
Solar has a good chance of being a very large industry in the future. Germany continues to advance, giving themselves an opportunity to be the world leaders in the industry -- the place where the skills, infrastructure, funding, supporting know-how (legal, financial, etc.) are all concentrated, like Silicon Valley for IT.
Meanwhile the "conservatives" in the US continue to obstruct progress here for political reasons, as part of their universal anti-liberal crusade. By loudly denying any idea that at any point was associated with liberals (including climate change and alternative energy), they will somehow change the facts and make conservatives "right".
Somehow nobody noticed that temperatures have not gone up in 16 years while CO2 levels climbed. So much for this new pagan religion.
Some people understand the importance of not drawing conclusions about long-term trends from short-term measurements in the presence of noise, and avoid cherry-picking the start date for their trend lines.
In order to really be useful, Germany would have to store at least gigawatt-hours of power. This huge solar peak they have during the daytime needs to be distributed at least into the evening hours, and ideally into the morning of the following day.
Distributed solar makes sense, at least partically because the loss of efficiency due to zillions of small power generation points more-or-less balances out with the gain in efficiency because the power is consumed near where it is generated, thus eliminating transmission losses.
Distributed power storage makes a good bit less sense. Charging and discharging batteries is - depending on the situation - somewhere between 60% and 80% efficient, dropping as the batteries age. The batteries will have to be replaced every few years, which further decreases the efficiency. Gigawatt-hours of batteries - we are talking - rough estimate - around 20,000 tons of batteries per GWh. That a lot of nasty chemical, not to mention manufacturing and recycling costs.
Frankly, Germany would be better off selling excess electricity to the Swiss, who then pump their lakes full, and then buying that electricity back when needed. This is around 70% efficient, and a hell of a lot friendlier to the environment.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Artificially establishing a self-sustaining market may be a very good thing. Why would power companies invest into green energy if the transition is both risky and costly, and if there is too little to gain from a strategic perspective? That does not even mean that they're likely to lose money in the long run, just that the return will be too little too late to justify the risk. On the other hand, society as a whole has a huge interest in greener energy. So what's wrong with making the transition more attractive? You're not creating artificial demand that would otherwise not be there.
yeah, it is not like coal, oil, nukes, hydro, trains, planes, space crafts, cars/roads, electrification, telephony, etc ever got a hand out from a gov, esp. the American federal or state govs.
You forgot natural gas, the US government funded the development of fracking, I just read about cotton, where the government developed anti-wrinkle technology that reputedly saved the industry from new synthetic competitors around 1950.
Also, didn't we give the financial industry a couple of bucks the other day? Health care? Every defense-related industry?
First: you make a debt by dumping some CO2 into the atmosphere to build the initial solar panels (and batteries).
Any future solar and battery creation will not add to the CO2-to-atmosphere debt, since the energy
is now from a carbon-free source.
Second: If hina wants to help germany go green and be MOER independent from oil and gas producing countries
by manufacturing cheap solar modules and batteries, then this is a good thing.
Same logic applies to point two: Once the system has been installed country wide and the source being free (sun),
the future manufacturing and replacement will be cheaper since the source is unlimited and the devices were cheap
(made in china). In the second iteration, that is in 10-20 years when the cheap (chinese) solar modules and batteries will need
replacement, the chinese will not be able to compete, because in the mean time the energy used in china to produce
solar moduels and batteries is gas/coal/oil and these will keep rising and getting moer expensive.
Meanwhile in germany, after the initial investment ... everything is just going to get cheaper by the day : )
With lead acid, you recycle. Lead acid car batteries have ~98% recycle rate.
http://earth911.com/recycling/car-batteries/
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
This is the CO2 return of invest of a windturbine. Solar panel is around 10 - 15 Months or so.
Well, in germany anytime the industry announces to leave germany if they are remembered that they have social and environmental duties,
but the first that tried this, came back to germany crying about unstable justice systems and unquallified workers, and concluded that they had spent far more, than they would have staying in germany.
Germany was dizzed by the US, for selling so many goods. I know that's because the industry fears ..
And btw. there are many places like the examples are USA and Australia where the grid is worse than the german grid.
You have a good point. There shouldn't be subsidies for solar, just like we shouldn't have subsidies for nuclear, oil and hydro. Somehow it's the solar subsidies that get the most criticism though.
This assumes that there is surplus electric power, which is undesirable, because that is some fossil fuel that could have not been burned, and could have been saved for another day.
The electricity is going to have losses, in converting to proper voltage for the battery. The battery itself has charging losses. Then, there will be more losses, when the battery's electricity is converted back to a standard voltage. Batteries cost a significant amount of money. If you are going to go through the time and money to store electricity in a battery, why not stick it into a car?
hey mate, no hard feelings about this reply but;
when you say something is a fact on the internet but you are only potentially right in some unstated hypothetical reality as opposed to RL then you just contribute to confusion and misinformation, which is becoming a really major porblem ;)
ok. my gripe; yes, if all materials are retained they should all be reusable. the issue is that this does not happen, and although lead acid are one of the most easily recycled battery, and certainly common, less than 40% of the material is recovered. this is a matter of energy economics (of the cost of reextracting the materials vs making and transporting a new one) and so lead acid batteries are only potentially green, but are not so in RL.
you would think agriculture was green too right, but major major countries presently use over 2kJ of oil per kJ of food produced. even the most efficient country in the world, agriculturally, australia only gets a slight return from the sun with about 0.9kJ of oil per kJ of food produced. sad isnt it.
and then there is peak phosphorus, etc etc.
have a nice day mate.
I own a house in Germany, unlike most readers here. To be clear, the money from the KfW is a loan, not a subsidy. The subsidy, if there is one, is that most KfW loans are interest free for the first 10 years.
The irritating thing to this home owner is that there seems to be no end to home improvements that our German government would like for me to implement. Be it tripple-paned windows, foam insulation, solar heating, solar power, and now batteries. And my house is barely 20 years old. I'm not against somebody who wants to put all these things into their home, but for this home owner, none of these things make any economic sense - even with a zero interest loan. This home owner has decided to do exactly nothing. And that in and of itself saves the environment a lot of waste.
Sure things might look okay now, but in 10 years when bubsiness (and JOBS) have moved to more market driven countries
Which countries are those?
P.S. Even though I completely disagree with you, I think it's idiotic that you were down modded to -1. Hey mods: that's for trolls and flamebait, not opinions you disagree with.
Frankly, Germany would be better off selling excess electricity to the Swiss, who then pump their lakes full, and then buying that electricity back when needed. This is around 70% efficient, and a hell of a lot friendlier to the environment.
Yeah, potential energy storage (pumping water uphill with excess energy and later letting it fall to recover the energy) is quite practical even if it isn't glamorous. It's been quietly used in the US for years - e.g., the Taum Sauk pumped storage unit in Missouri. (Whose dam failed several years ago after a limiter switch failed to cut off the pumps when the reservoir filled. Several lives were lost in the resulting flood.)
It makes sense for gov. to help new industries get started, but I do not like how they do it. far better ways to do so.
BUT, the financial industry is the one that burns me. We should NOT have bailed them out. Instead, we should have allowed them to crash and then picked up the pieces and re-built many new banks or better yet, credit unions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You had me worried for a moment - I misread billion as million.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'll take my socialism in the form of corporate welfare for the oil companies, than you very much.
The role of "the state" or the government is to take action for stuff the populace or the market or the industry is to short sighted for.
Hence we have laws/subsidies for education, military, healthcare, space travel, pensions, marriage etc etc and especially for future energy.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
unreliability of the electric grid.
Hahahahahahah.
What?
Signed,
a German
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Great success. God forbid.
Germany was dizzed by the US, for selling so many goods. I know that's because the industry fears ...
Other European countries complain about that a lot more than the US, and for good reason. For all that I admire German industry in many ways, Germany has had a mercantilist policy for decades. The Plaza Accord in 1985 dramatically reduced the German-US trade imbalance because it forced Germany to stop manipulating its currency. More recently, the Euro is beloved by Germany because they can run a trade surplus which doesn't get balanced out by movement in the exchange rates. European financial difficulties would be far less without the Euro. Like most mercantilist countries, Germany prides itself on its thrift and the competitiveness of its industry, where the truth is that they're simply part of the problem. The US took a similar tact in the 1920's, and it was a big part of the reason for the Great Depression.
You're preaching to the choir. Note my implied criticism for the typical libertarian's very selective complaints about government subsidies. The Koch brothers don't complain much about government subsidies for oil, do they?
LOL. You brainwashed idiot.
www.climatedepot.com
Good enough for you? Don't let the facts get in the way of your pathetic new 'religion'.
Citation needed. You see there is this thing called investment, which may or may not have a return, but investors (such as governments) usually invest in things they expect to have a positive return. Some corporations do it as well, it's just that their shareholders don't always like them making investments with long-term payoffs. I don't think this is a new thing for Germany, and I see no evidence of them failing economically in the past, or now. They had a brief period in the 30s when their economy went tits up due to being forced to pay war reparations to all their neighbours, but since the 1940s they have been net positive contributors to the Soviet economy and now the European economy since reunification. Your comment sounds like mostly uninformed prejudice.
Korma: Good
I see unwelcome trends.
Those who advocate taking energy storage down to the building or subscriber level are living in a dream. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful dream! But this €20,000 unit cost will not magically come into existence. Those who envision lithium or (eventually it comes down to) lead acid batteries to the point where their effect is even detectable at grid scales are proposing an environmental nightmare in the manufacture and mass deployment of such things. Which thankfully will not come to pass because the investment capital is not there.
I go with solutions that are massive, central, run by the same people who (reliably) supply your electricity, and do not rely on evil large multipliers of objects constructed from rare earth elements or poisonous heavy metals.
I'm talking about something simple and inherently non-toxic, stored kinetic energy and rotation of heavy balanced cylinders in a near-vacuum. I vote fewer that are really big rather than many. Hoover Dam tech. Despite Beacon's bankruptcy in 2011 there are players who hope to salvage the concept using gimbals for stabilization.
I like the idea of kinetic energy storage solutions because if they were massive, centrally located and well constructed, the components would be mechanical parts that might have a smaller replacement cost than an equivalent amount of battery technology, whose chemical composition changes with age. It also fits well with my assertion that we should convert our long haul energy corridors (and generation facilities along those corridors) to native HVDC for a true inter-connected continental (and ultimately global) grid.
___
My letters on energy:
To The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senate
To whom it may concern, Halliburton Corporate
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
What you also didn't see was residential air conditioning, which is without a doubt the biggest user of residential power in the world.
If you hold any significant positions in incumbent utilities now is the time to think about selling before its too late. They will fight, kick, scream, but in the end the lifespan left on their business model as it currently stands is now severely limited.
The German people deserve credit for what they get right. For some reason the Germans have always seemed able to unite and take on massive projects more quickly than other nations. And I suspect their technology will be first rate in this new adventure.
Now imagine how easily most of the US can do the same. We are drowning in sunlight over a great portion of our nation. The potential of states like Florida and Texas to gather sunlight is remarkable. Most days we wish we had a little less solar light here. And we have plenty of wind and tidal energy as well. But unlike Germany we are a people at war with ourselves and our institutions and we simply can not push forward at all compared to Germany. Common resources such as wind, solar and tide seem to be shunned while things that cripple common resources are highly sought after here.
It's called picking winners and losers. Perhaps otherwise the next winners might happen in other countries first. Is capitalism the best path to making that choice?
As a German now living in California I can only say: LOL
The place with the rotten infrastructure is the US.
Germany is clearly on the right track with its energy policy. (I haven't thought deeply about this specific project, though)
I always wonder why americans have a habit to stick to certain opinion even if there is clear evidence from elsewhere indicating otherwise. The idea that unions must always ruin an industry, that socialized healthcare is too expensive, that the German energy politics will ruin it, etc... When listening to some extreme opinions I sometimes think that the country I grew up in can only exist in a fairy tale. *clearly* all such bad things (unions, socialized healthcare, green energy) can not work out well in reality.
Do you own any polyester clothes?
Only an idiot will claim government saved cotton from polyester. Never trust that source for anything, ever again. They have an axe to grind.
Fracking was invented in about 1900. The recent furor is just morons bleating.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The rate of return government is concerned about is votes/dollar.
Assume anything else and you have to assume they are _all_ morons.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The market is, by definition, far-sighted. The definition of a security's price is "the value of all future business of the concern."
Because they are basically isolationist. It doesn't work well in a world with rapid transport, but they are still basically isolationist. This is one reason the foreign policy is so stupid. People just don't like to think about it.
(That said, this is clearly an oversimplification. But it's one of the big pieces. Like the stereotype US tourist who thinks that foreigners will underdand them if they just talk slowly, clearly, and loud enough.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The market is, by definition, far-sighted.
By definition? The market is always right, if you define "right" to be whatever the market does. It's a tautology.
The definition of a security's price is "the value of all future business of the concern."
I hope you don't do any serious trading with that idea, because you're going to be very poor. As Keynes observed (from personal experience), the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
In other news: The US spending on war continues unabated...
(Imagine how many actual problems they could have solved by now if they spent all that money on something else....)
No sig today...
Yet another paragon of scientific insight. I've read more than enough of those denialist sites to understand the two basic strategies. First, find something stupid somebody said (today's example is Typhoon Haiyan), and act as if that debunks the whole theory. Meanwhile, back in reality, most climatologists are extremely vocal about the fact that no one weather event can be blamed on AGCC. The other approach is to cherry pick a few examples of noise defying an overall trend. It would only be suspicious if you couldn't find such examples. Any theory of something so complex that perfectly matched the data would be a fraud. Nowhere, of course, do the denialists offer a thorough statistical analysis of their own that refutes AGCC.
I think they bet on new, more efficient, cleaner technologies that will replace lead-acid sooner or later (eg. liquid metal batteries) but something has to start this process of development. So yes - lead batteries might be dirty right now but overall process will cut a lot more of impact of coal in the future. Clearly they are far ahead of everyone else in this regard. Renewable energy devices prices are dropping similiarly to computer prices not so long ago. I wonder when (not if) they'll be able to push prices below coal.
Reminds me of printed documentation that says "this page intentionally left blank".
Only an idiot will claim government saved cotton from polyester.
Ruth Benerito is most famous for her work relating to the use of mono-basic acid chlorides in the production of cotton, with which she has 55 patents, which allows for more wrinkle-free and durable clothing. She invented these wash-and-wear cotton fabrics while working at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) laboratories in New Orleans in the 1950s.
Sounds like government research to me.
Fracking was invented in about 1900.
And hasn't changed since.
Yeah, what did the Romans ever do for us? ;-)
Do not want or need free energy my friend.
Here's a basic rule in life: If you can question "We should have done this buy why didn't we?" it's because the Rothchilds said no. Plain and simple.
It's not that there was/wasn't government research. It's that it didn't matter. Polyester sucks, wrinkle proof cotton is not wrinkle proof.
Your second point, yep: Fracking has been safe for over 100 years.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Especially if the energy used to make a PV Solar Cell is still -less- than the amount it's expected to produce, over its lifetime, PV solar energy might not be the best choice of sustainable energy to invest in.
(Batteries for -local- storage of electrical energy might be good, eg, as anything that disconnects one's home or office from mains power is a problem almost anywhere.)
In a post-Fukishima world, the EC - if not [also] Germany - should be investing in Energy from Thorium (eg, developing improvements of its proven technology from the 1950's, which even Germany has successfully trialed in the 1960's or the 1980's, I understand).
For many of the reasons (ie, features), cf Prof Dr Eduardo Greaves' [36-min.] talk "Thorium as Nuclear Fuel in Molten Salt Reactors" (on YouTube.com). (The impatient can search TED.com for Sorensen's 10-min talk & view at least its last 5 min's.)
R&D should run in parallel with Education & Debate, in the hopes that the Public will soon "get" that there are several types of reactor, some (eg, Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors = LFTRs) being much -safer- than Fukushima's reactors proved to be.
We should all understand the differences between even Canada's (long ago) improved CanDo reactors (still in the same "safety class" as Fukushima's, I understand) -and- LFTRs, which are expected to be not only "walk-away safe" but also cheaper to build & run.
After people come to understand the significant differences & inherent advantages in the design of LFTRs (and their safety levels are verified in ways that give all peoples confidence to embrace them, even near their back yards), we'll be able to make another great stride in our energy technology that can enable us to:
1. reduce CO2 emissions, & also turn back Climate Change that appears to be caused by it
2. enable any & all nations to build & use LFTR-technology - instead of current Plutonium-producing reactors, that we limit today
3. reduce the amount & cost of spent-fuel storage, eg, by consuming that fuel & getting energy from what was once waste
4. reduce or even eliminate "oil wars"
5. enabling us to -stop- "fracking" for Shale Oil &/or Coal-Seam Gas (CSG), which destroys water & land resources
6. reduce internal conflicts within nations (eg, legal battles & protests over "fracking")
7. redirect our minds to innovative & exploratory projects, in Science, Medicine, Space, Community Development, etc.
I see only win-win's from Energy from Thorium... are there any risks or disadvantages?
Let the debate continue, eg, in you comments & replies.
Or the other bullshit excuses.
I disagree with solar panels, and Bill Clinton's subsidizing mortgages for single family homes. The average person can't tell between good house construction, and poor house construction. So, homebuilders build big, shoddy houses, that impress the average person, which he can afford, thanks to federally subsidized mortgages.
Instead, smaller, well insulated condos in the city, would have been a more energy efficient way to go. Maybe throw in some light rail. No more damn lawns to worry about.
if they had decided to support the electric car. But German car makers are behind the competition in that field, so they made sure the government they elected keeps pushing the combustion engine. Why should anyone install stationary batteries in their homes? It's not like we have blackouts all the time. They should work on keeping it that way by investing in infrastructure, instead of relying on home owners.
So if I want milk, onions and bread from the grocery store and it costs $10 total, I should be grateful for the government taking $400 dollars from me and getting me orange juice, crackers and onions?
There has been far more money wasted on wars, graft and general inefficiencies than the sum total the government has "given" us.
I had five kids, and now you tell me I can't count on them? Dammit!
You can only count to 5 on them. If you want to do anything with double-digit numbers, you have to make more kids.
Boing Inc. has lots of batteries from their replacements of Dreamliner batteries. I'm sure they could have a "fire" sale!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
...Some people understand the importance of not drawing conclusions about long-term trends from short-term measurements...
Er... we drew conclusions about global warming from a lot shorter trend than this one...
Worldwide there is 5 times more money spent on military than medical.
I wonder what that is like in the US ;-)
New things are always on the horizon
The funny thing is, oil still does. And it might surprise you, but it's more than solar and wind.
New things are always on the horizon
That is a very US-centric view.
New things are always on the horizon
Really, cause I see politicians handing out bread and circuses world wide.
You think Greek politicians aren't buying votes with government money? Egyptian politicians? Russian politicians?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That said: if your objection was about units. Good call.
The rate of return government is concerned about is votes/money.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Do you think it applies to Germany ? because I don't.
New things are always on the horizon
Lessor extent, but yes. Germany has a strong 'social safety net'. No doubt German mouth breathers vote for their benes.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Fracking was invented in about 1900
Radio was invented around then too, but the technology and its applications have changed a lot since then. The modern fracking techniques were developed by government funded research in the 80s and given for free to industry. Just look it up; it's easy to learn about.