I'm not saying maintenence costs are high; I'm saying the inital purchase price of the gear isn't recouped over the life of the gear.
With net metering, maintenance would likely be low / maybe zero ( no batteries ) but in a system with batteries there's at least terminals to clean off from time to time, battery electrolyte levels to maintain, etc. .
Again, not that maintenance is a significant cost in the overall system, but that the overall system doesn't pay for itself outside of net metering.
If you live in an area where net metering is not available, a solar electric system for your home probably won't pay for itself during your lifetime, unless the declining supply of coal and oil causes unprecedented increases in the cost of electricity. Your money may be better spent on energy- efficient home improvements.
I take your point; what I'm trying to get at is the inital outlay for solar isn't recouped over the life of the installation.
For example[1]: if you need one $15,000 super duper efficient unit, or 10 $1,500 electric shack bargain bin units, if the savings over the life of the unit is $10,000 the inital outlay is too expensive. This doesn't cover maintenance costs over the life of the unit(s), which would decrease the savings.
The process of coating solar cells with silicon nanoparticles could be easily incorporated into the manufacturing process with little additional cost, Nayfeh said.
How about something to make solar cheaper to purchase, so that the initial investment can be recouped before the expected replacement date?
Kinda funny, but the story reminds me of militia writtings from the mid 80's. The idea back then was to target electrical substations with scoped rifles, shooting out transformers, switches, et. al. with a goal towards disrupting the electric grid.
I'm not a "Liberal" or a "Conservative", I'm a person who understands how people can live together.
Just to clarify: There seem to be some groups of people who can not live together peacefully. Israelies and Palestinians leap to mind, as do $RELIGIOUS_CONSERVATIVE and $SECULAR_HUMANIST groups.
How, exactly, do people with wildly differing viewpoints live together peacefully?
I've just never been able to reconcile the "we're all humans, so lets all get along" idea with the reality that different groups seek to wipe each other out, either through violence or through social policy which ( to the affected population ) undermines their belief system.
Well, purging the justice dept. wouldn't require a bill. Firing all the US Attorneys is rather standard when a new President takes office ( See: Bill Clinton ).
As to everything else, you're ok with "the executive will still do what it's always done" so long as "it just won't try to do it the macho pseudo-legitimacy the Bush Administration tried to do it with."?
I read that as: "I don't care what Bush does, I just don't like how he does it". In other words, if Bush was a Democrat, you'd be happy with everything he did?
The PR defense against the Republicans crying hypocrisy would be to use the current Republican talking points in favor of the expansion of the executive and quote the Republicans directly.
I just dont see a politician, either Dem or Repub, willingly giving up power.
It seems the differences between liberal and conservative are something like:
Liberal: No private ownership of firearms. Abortions on demand. Gay marriage legalized. Conservative: Less or no restrictions on private ownership of firearms. Abortions strictly regulated or banned. Gay marriage illegal.
As both movements are comprised of politicians, I don't see the Democrats ( if they win the next election ) giving up any of the executive authority Bush has acquired. Politicians seek power like teenagers seek whiskey and car keys.
And, at least in the current political atmosphere in DC, there seems to be no difference on economic issues ( outside of no chance in hell candidates like Kucinich ).
Just like every organized religion, there are political movements within Islam but that does not make it a political ideology.
So... if Islamic countries imposed Sharia, would that in your mind make Islam a political ideology?
As to this:
I've seen the best you can do even with massive wealth (KSA, and the Gulf Emirates) and do not want MY country to be like them.
I agree on this point, but I've also seen what has happened and continues to happen in the best "Christian nations" and do not want MY country to be like them.
Which countries, other than Islamic, have religious police? Which societies, other than Islamic, support religious mandated murder ( for adultery, for instance ) or dismemberment ( cutting off a thiefs hand ) ?
I've heard the equivalency argument ( that Christianity / Judaism / et. al. are just as bad as Islam ) but I've yet to see an example of a modern society as extreame as Islamic.
For instance, the acts of Stalin to execute his own people is caused by a fascist system. The starvation of people due to lack of resources is the result of a communist system. Any outrage of atrocities should be directed solely at the former political ideology and really has nothing to do with the later one, which is really just a poor economic system with no real malicious properties.
o.O
Stalin... was a fascist? If your historical revisionism can call the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee a fascist your skills at metal yoga are truly impressive.
Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.
So the common view seems to be as political as it is economic.
It doesn't matter if the citizens of a state are killed in killing fields or as a result of Communist economic policy, the end result is neither system is designed for the benefit of it's citizens but instead operates to their detriment.
if the 'layman' wants to make an informed decision, he/she needs to think critically about the information provided.
Very true.
However, without the background in climatology, how does one make that critical determination?
There's some comments which just smack of hyperbole, of course:
"Global warming is a complete lie! It's an attempt by communist scum to destroy our industry!"
In that, the phrase "precious bodily fluids" seems to come naturally at the end of the statement.;)
"We must abandon industrial society and return to an agrarian lifestyle! Walk everywhere! Be vegan!"
Which strikes me as completely impractical and nonsensical ( not like we didn't eat meat in the 1800's, for instance ).
I'd seen the NASA page previously and was impressed. Now, if J. Random Blogger can find errors in their maths, I have to wonder just how peer reviewed their data was and if the conclusion ( which many seem to take as fact ) that global warming is not a natural cycle but entirely man-made is valid.
So much of the global warming debate sounds like religious jihad it makes it hard for the layman ( like me ) to decide what's true and what's hyperbole.
As others have pointed out, your experience constitutes a single data point.
However, perhaps your views cloud your judgement?
But it is messed up, and I find it hard to believe it isn't our fault.
This is the sort of thing which gives those who don't support global warming traction. Statements like that make global warming look less like scientific fact and more like an expression of self loathing.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're talking past each other.
I'm not saying maintenence costs are high; I'm saying the inital purchase price of the gear isn't recouped over the life of the gear.
With net metering, maintenance would likely be low / maybe zero ( no batteries ) but in a system with batteries there's at least terminals to clean off from time to time, battery electrolyte levels to maintain, etc. .
Again, not that maintenance is a significant cost in the overall system, but that the overall system doesn't pay for itself outside of net metering.
I don't know about a "significant" cost, but I presume non-zero.
Antigua has oil?
I take your point; what I'm trying to get at is the inital outlay for solar isn't recouped over the life of the installation.
For example[1]: if you need one $15,000 super duper efficient unit, or 10 $1,500 electric shack bargain bin units, if the savings over the life of the unit is $10,000 the inital outlay is too expensive. This doesn't cover maintenance costs over the life of the unit(s), which would decrease the savings.
[1] costs illustrative only.
How about something to make solar cheaper to purchase, so that the initial investment can be recouped before the expected replacement date?
Kinda funny, but the story reminds me of militia writtings from the mid 80's. The idea back then was to target electrical substations with scoped rifles, shooting out transformers, switches, et. al. with a goal towards disrupting the electric grid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qx-t3eugoM
;)
It's funny... laugh
So, if you have a dispute with Microsoft, it's chairs at twenty paces?
[shudder]
Goofballs add bogus info to Wikipedia; said bogus info is promptly corrected.
This is news?
That does seem to be the key to environmental issues.
Make doing the "right thing" cheaper than the alternatives.
Just to clarify: There seem to be some groups of people who can not live together peacefully. Israelies and Palestinians leap to mind, as do $RELIGIOUS_CONSERVATIVE and $SECULAR_HUMANIST groups.
How, exactly, do people with wildly differing viewpoints live together peacefully?
I've just never been able to reconcile the "we're all humans, so lets all get along" idea with the reality that different groups seek to wipe each other out, either through violence or through social policy which ( to the affected population ) undermines their belief system.
Well, purging the justice dept. wouldn't require a bill. Firing all the US Attorneys is rather standard when a new President takes office ( See: Bill Clinton ).
As to everything else, you're ok with "the executive will still do what it's always done" so long as "it just won't try to do it the macho pseudo-legitimacy the Bush Administration tried to do it with."?
I read that as: "I don't care what Bush does, I just don't like how he does it". In other words, if Bush was a Democrat, you'd be happy with everything he did?
I hope you're right... but I kinda doubt it.
The PR defense against the Republicans crying hypocrisy would be to use the current Republican talking points in favor of the expansion of the executive and quote the Republicans directly.
I just dont see a politician, either Dem or Repub, willingly giving up power.
I don't usually respond to AC posts, but very true.
Not for lack of trying.
It seems the differences between liberal and conservative are something like:
Liberal: No private ownership of firearms. Abortions on demand. Gay marriage legalized.
Conservative: Less or no restrictions on private ownership of firearms. Abortions strictly regulated or banned. Gay marriage illegal.
As both movements are comprised of politicians, I don't see the Democrats ( if they win the next election ) giving up any of the executive authority Bush has acquired. Politicians seek power like teenagers seek whiskey and car keys.
And, at least in the current political atmosphere in DC, there seems to be no difference on economic issues ( outside of no chance in hell candidates like Kucinich ).
Kinda sad, all told.
So, the CD retaining the higher harmonics is why the CD is more advantageous for driving off hippies?
PS: Reference for the uninitiated
Finally, a reason why I didn't RTFA!
So... if Islamic countries imposed Sharia, would that in your mind make Islam a political ideology?
As to this:
Which countries, other than Islamic, have religious police? Which societies, other than Islamic, support religious mandated murder ( for adultery, for instance ) or dismemberment ( cutting off a thiefs hand ) ?
I've heard the equivalency argument ( that Christianity / Judaism / et. al. are just as bad as Islam ) but I've yet to see an example of a modern society as extreame as Islamic.
o.O
Stalin... was a fascist? If your historical revisionism can call the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee a fascist your skills at metal yoga are truly impressive.
As to communism being only an economic system, that's a non-standard definition.
From the all knowing Wikipedia
So the common view seems to be as political as it is economic.
It doesn't matter if the citizens of a state are killed in killing fields or as a result of Communist economic policy, the end result is neither system is designed for the benefit of it's citizens but instead operates to their detriment.
Very true.
However, without the background in climatology, how does one make that critical determination?
There's some comments which just smack of hyperbole, of course:
"Global warming is a complete lie! It's an attempt by communist scum to destroy our industry!"
In that, the phrase "precious bodily fluids" seems to come naturally at the end of the statement.
"We must abandon industrial society and return to an agrarian lifestyle! Walk everywhere! Be vegan!"
Which strikes me as completely impractical and nonsensical ( not like we didn't eat meat in the 1800's, for instance ).
I'd seen the NASA page previously and was impressed. Now, if J. Random Blogger can find errors in their maths, I have to wonder just how peer reviewed their data was and if the conclusion ( which many seem to take as fact ) that global warming is not a natural cycle but entirely man-made is valid.
Exactly.
So much of the global warming debate sounds like religious jihad it makes it hard for the layman ( like me ) to decide what's true and what's hyperbole.
As others have pointed out, your experience constitutes a single data point.
However, perhaps your views cloud your judgement?
This is the sort of thing which gives those who don't support global warming traction. Statements like that make global warming look less like scientific fact and more like an expression of self loathing.
Considering how many of their own citizens both Communism and Fascism killed, perhaps one could be forgiven for overlooking distinctions between them?