If utilities aren't included in the price, yes I see it fairly commonly that they specify what the monthly utilities would generally cost. (I would also assume most prospective renters would ask this question if not provided too!) Perhaps not for apartments as they are usually significantly smaller and won't see significant savings. I guess I'm mostly thinking about renting full houses/townhouses.
The person paying to install the unit can rent at a higher rate because a: it's a new AC unit, and b: it will save the renters money. When you can say you're average heat/cooling bill is X dollars/month which is cheaper than everybody else, you'll get more renters.
Try reading again. It's a $4000 investment that pays off in 2 years. Damn good investment. After that you get the $4000/2 yr savings for the life of the unit. If people are so poor, saving $167/month would seem to be something they'd want to do, even if they're paying a loan to do it.
So you're argument for nuclear is that other methods of power generation also release radioactive waste? just wow.
As I said, the 'only' positive for nuclear is the lack of CO2 release - and you apparently agree.
How about Fukushima where 10 of thousands of people have had to abandon their homes for going on 2 years? Chernobyl? 'when' they fail, it's catastrophic for decades if not centuries. And that doesn't even deal with the storage of nuclear waste for centuries - something we haven't all proven we can do safely.
The only positive about nuclear is the lack of CO2 emissions. That's it. It has all the other downsides of a fossil fuel, i.e. mining and transportation of fuel to plant, etc. And of course the radiation issues 'when' something fails. Oh and that whole proliferation of fissile material thing (at least for the uranium/plutonium techs).
For the next century or so nuclear is likely the only feasible solution to maintain our modern society and combat global warming. but once energy storage tech is brought up to grid scale, nuclear will fade away to niche use at best since buildings simply sitting there will be collecting all the energy you'll ever need.
I'm with you on the downsides of nuclear, but given the projected sea level rise, the cost of the warming is going to be much much worse than a few nuclear plants going boom. Flooding out the coast lines worldwide will displace far more people than even if all the nuke plants went FUBAR.
We probably need nuclear for the next 50-100 years at least until we can get the energy storage technology ramped up enough for grid scale usage of renewable sources.
Thorium nuclear has lots of potential as well, without the proliferation aspects. That needs lots of R & D before being usable too though.
Geothermal and Solar have basically the same problem. Quite plentiful, way more than we'll ever use until we become truly space going (centuries) but dispersed enough that gathering and storing it becomes impractical.
The main problem with renewable sources isn't the availability, it's the storage for later use. Coal/oil/uranium already have this part solved by nature, though with all the downsides that go with them. Dams solve the storage issue for hydro, but can't really be built in many more places than they are already and have their own negatives as well.
No argument at all. The problem lies in the sizable percentage of people who will fail such training. Unlike Germany and most of Europe, public transit options in the majority of the US are minimal at best.
It's mostly a geographic issue since we are much much more spread out and providing good public transit to rural areas isn't going to be easy.
Yep, my parents 80s era Chevette was floaty at something like 60 mph. God speed if a gust of wind came up at the same time. I've literally changed lanes a few times.
It's an interesting concept since as you say modern cars are far more capable at greater speeds. The problem with speed isn't the speed itself, it's the wild differential between you and other traffic. If *everybody* is going 100 mph, it's not a huge deal. But a range from 55 - 100? Without serious training it isn't ever going to be safe. German's pay through the nose for their driving privilege and roads because they want to speed like that - and have rigorous rules about keeping right unless you're going the 'minimum' speed for the lane you want to get into.
US drivers trying this would be beyond hazardous. It would take most of a generation to get our driving skills up to the level necessary. (Except mine of course, *I* am a great driver! haha)
When it's been debated and found true? Sure. Just because you don't like the outcome of the settled argument doesn't mean we have to continue to grant you a forum.
this one? By none other than Mr. Hansen who is wonderfully derided by the deniers.
And you know what? It even shows a shallowing of the temperate rise during your so called 'stalled global temp' growth. So yes he predicted something quite similar to what we're seeing.
There may be a short term slowing of temperature rise going on...but you're still flatly ignoring the rapid increase in the previous 30 years, just blindly assuming it won't resume going up. Scientists don't claim to know everything, but decades of consistent pattern followed by a few years of slightly less than predicted results don't change the overall situation.
I like the idea. Only concern might be it would cause the number of people willing to do the reviews to drop... quality goes up but quantity of reviewed material goes down - which isn't good for anybody. Not sure which is worse though.
The temperature predictions perhaps? The faster glacier movement in Antarctica and everywhere else? The predictions that Glacier National Park would be wildly misnamed in less than a generation?
Slashdot Mirror
If utilities aren't included in the price, yes I see it fairly commonly that they specify what the monthly utilities would generally cost. (I would also assume most prospective renters would ask this question if not provided too!) Perhaps not for apartments as they are usually significantly smaller and won't see significant savings. I guess I'm mostly thinking about renting full houses/townhouses.
The person paying to install the unit can rent at a higher rate because a: it's a new AC unit, and b: it will save the renters money. When you can say you're average heat/cooling bill is X dollars/month which is cheaper than everybody else, you'll get more renters.
Try reading again. It's a $4000 investment that pays off in 2 years. Damn good investment. After that you get the $4000/2 yr savings for the life of the unit. If people are so poor, saving $167/month would seem to be something they'd want to do, even if they're paying a loan to do it.
His Mom made him do it!
Sen. Paul, is that you? ;-)
Wasn't one of Snowden's 'triggers' to his document releases the blatant rights violations of the Swiss at the behest of the NSA?
So you're argument for nuclear is that other methods of power generation also release radioactive waste? just wow.
As I said, the 'only' positive for nuclear is the lack of CO2 release - and you apparently agree.
How about Fukushima where 10 of thousands of people have had to abandon their homes for going on 2 years? Chernobyl? 'when' they fail, it's catastrophic for decades if not centuries. And that doesn't even deal with the storage of nuclear waste for centuries - something we haven't all proven we can do safely.
I think you missed a key factor..but it's ok, it's night time and kinda dark...
The only positive about nuclear is the lack of CO2 emissions. That's it. It has all the other downsides of a fossil fuel, i.e. mining and transportation of fuel to plant, etc. And of course the radiation issues 'when' something fails. Oh and that whole proliferation of fissile material thing (at least for the uranium/plutonium techs).
For the next century or so nuclear is likely the only feasible solution to maintain our modern society and combat global warming. but once energy storage tech is brought up to grid scale, nuclear will fade away to niche use at best since buildings simply sitting there will be collecting all the energy you'll ever need.
I'm with you on the downsides of nuclear, but given the projected sea level rise, the cost of the warming is going to be much much worse than a few nuclear plants going boom. Flooding out the coast lines worldwide will displace far more people than even if all the nuke plants went FUBAR.
We probably need nuclear for the next 50-100 years at least until we can get the energy storage technology ramped up enough for grid scale usage of renewable sources.
Thorium nuclear has lots of potential as well, without the proliferation aspects. That needs lots of R & D before being usable too though.
Geothermal and Solar have basically the same problem. Quite plentiful, way more than we'll ever use until we become truly space going (centuries) but dispersed enough that gathering and storing it becomes impractical.
The main problem with renewable sources isn't the availability, it's the storage for later use. Coal/oil/uranium already have this part solved by nature, though with all the downsides that go with them. Dams solve the storage issue for hydro, but can't really be built in many more places than they are already and have their own negatives as well.
No argument at all. The problem lies in the sizable percentage of people who will fail such training. Unlike Germany and most of Europe, public transit options in the majority of the US are minimal at best.
It's mostly a geographic issue since we are much much more spread out and providing good public transit to rural areas isn't going to be easy.
Yep, my parents 80s era Chevette was floaty at something like 60 mph. God speed if a gust of wind came up at the same time. I've literally changed lanes a few times.
It's an interesting concept since as you say modern cars are far more capable at greater speeds. The problem with speed isn't the speed itself, it's the wild differential between you and other traffic. If *everybody* is going 100 mph, it's not a huge deal. But a range from 55 - 100? Without serious training it isn't ever going to be safe. German's pay through the nose for their driving privilege and roads because they want to speed like that - and have rigorous rules about keeping right unless you're going the 'minimum' speed for the lane you want to get into.
US drivers trying this would be beyond hazardous. It would take most of a generation to get our driving skills up to the level necessary. (Except mine of course, *I* am a great driver! haha)
When it's been debated and found true? Sure. Just because you don't like the outcome of the settled argument doesn't mean we have to continue to grant you a forum.
show me something, anything, along the same lines as above, the left wing 'crazies' say that is provably false?
and, you may not quite grasp this. Upward 'curves' become vertical and that is very very very bad.
Or perhaps a direct quote:
They only underestimated the observed trend by about 30%
or
easily beating naive predictions of no-change or a linear continuation of trends
Yeah, nothing to see here..at...all.....
left to the reader
this one? By none other than Mr. Hansen who is wonderfully derided by the deniers.
And you know what? It even shows a shallowing of the temperate rise during your so called 'stalled global temp' growth. So yes he predicted something quite similar to what we're seeing.
There may be a short term slowing of temperature rise going on...but you're still flatly ignoring the rapid increase in the previous 30 years, just blindly assuming it won't resume going up. Scientists don't claim to know everything, but decades of consistent pattern followed by a few years of slightly less than predicted results don't change the overall situation.
A scientific 'theory' is proven. A 'hypothesis' is still uncertain.
Or do you not believe in the theory of gravity either?
I like the idea. Only concern might be it would cause the number of people willing to do the reviews to drop... quality goes up but quantity of reviewed material goes down - which isn't good for anybody. Not sure which is worse though.
The temperature predictions perhaps? The faster glacier movement in Antarctica and everywhere else? The predictions that Glacier National Park would be wildly misnamed in less than a generation?
So you're either 'not passed left and right all the time' while going posted limit or the 'fast late' is generally doing 5-10 above what you're doing?
Which is it?
why not both?
No argument on that point. Doesn't change the reality of current human drivers going well over posted limits :)