But that $25,000 to $30,000 will result in $50,000 to $60,000 in the owner’s reduced operating costs over the 25-year life...
Invalid comparison. The $30k is an upfront cost, and needs to have interest and maintenance and insurance added to make the comparison valid.
Maintenance? You do know how solid state technology works right?
Insurance and interest and negligible, especially if you want to get really picky and include increased value of the property over time. And if you want to really, really picky, you could argue that improved building standards improve the quality of the building requiring less maintenance, lowering insurance premiums and increasing value yet again.
Look, even if the figures are wrong, we know solar is already cost neutral in lower latitudes where they get sun. The efficiency of solar is not in question, only the detail of the actual policy (ie who is affected/exempted and for what reasons)
It's small enough when the government can't interfere with the small government types while still being big enough to interfere with those they don't like or agree with.
Following up from the previous response, we know Solar Panel technology gets cheaper each year while electricity prices rise. So it follows that at some point the TCO reaches a tipping point to be cost neutral. From memory that was about 10 years ago (depending on where you live/solar insolation etc), so even if the quoted figures are inaccurate, we still know that solar is already cost effective in lower latitudes.
Solar PV Cells degrade over time expected life 20 years
Cool, by how much? Because that's important you know. Most panels offer degradation down to 80% after 25 years.
Batteries ? Lucky to get 10 years out of them.
Nothing in this is about storage, so I can only assume you're trying to distract from the point
Inverters and associated equipment, likely minor efficiency degradation would have to look and really don't care to.
Of course you don't, because you've made up your mind regardless of the facts.
Bottom line you pay 25k up front, and something like another 35k over the life.
This is supposed to be news for nerds, not news for stupid people who talk out of their arse.
A 3kw system costs me $6500 installed, with 25 year warranty on panels and 10 years on the inverter (the only parts that can break), before any govt rebates.
A conservative calculation on time it would take to make back the savings is about 6 years. This means after 6 years I get 4 years free electricity, then assuming the worst and my inverter blows up one day after the tenth year, I pay $1000 for a new inverter and get the next ten years electricity for free too.
Seems like a great deal/sarcasm
Only if you have no idea what you are talking about.
Why force solar panels on a home built in the shade of a forest,
Is this common where you live? Because to me that seems like an extreme use case which would probably be dealt with int he fine print. For the other 99.99% of us that build our houses with some sort of exposure to the sun, it is isn't a big deal.
The proposed law forcing new construction to have solar power is the result of leftist fools who think their whims should be law;
You failed to explain how which is usually a bad sign...
Solar panels reduce the cost of home ownership (ie their cost is recovered by savings made over time). But somehow to you this is crazy leftist thinking. In the non-foolish right universe we all prefer to pay more for electricity?
That the citizenry of California lets them have their way shows that the whole state is insane.
If by insane you mean the wealthiest state in the nation then sure....
I'm an atheist. I have no religion. I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
My solar broke even in four years making them effectively free for the next 15 plus years. Only people who don't understand what TCO is think they add cost.
Right. You know this is just you saying they aren't over and over again?
While not entirely representative of reality, they're unscripted TV which is not what a soap opera is at all. There is no story arc.
I assure you that they are mostly scripted. I have friends in TV, I know people who have been on reality shows. It may not follow the same rigid format of a scripted show, but it there is a script, there is direction, and there are story arcs. The melodrama is scripted, and the primary driver is product placement and sponsors just like a traditional soap. Reality TV is simply the soap opera evolving to the 21st century audience. Or did you think these people get into big arguments every week, kiss and make up and then repeat it the following week for years on end and it's all real?
That is not a truly free market because the important freedom in a free market is a “freedom from”, not a “freedom to”. My complaint is that what we have is too much like that, not too little.
'Freedom from' is a regulated market because only regulations allows protections. A true, true free market is 'freedom to', which is effectively a jungle
and was pretty obvious if you bothered to read it, so your "question" was moot.
I went back and re-read it, the discussion is about America's position in the world and how that came to be. But keep avoiding the question if that makes you feel better.
To argue that the US was built "mostly on slave labour" is a total lie, and shows your lack of knowledge of the industrial revolution.
Slavery was part of the economy, you can't just pretend it didn't exist.
Nobody alive in the US was a slave, nor was anyone a slave owner.
Oh right so there's no problem then...
As for reparations, there's plenty of "affirmative action". My own company has for many years promoted and given larger pay increases to "persons of color".
And how is that working out? All problems fixed? People of colour no longer over-represented in health, employment or crime statistics?
If there's still problems, it means your solution isn't good enough.
Although I think it's still incredible to this day, it should also be noted this was 1968. 2001 was revolutionary in its day. Not as much now. (I give the Beatles the same handicap. I don't think most of their music stands the test of time, but it was revolutionary in its day. Go ahead, flame me)
Same here. There is nothing from the 60's that even comes close to 2001 for the story telling. The pace was low, but it's supposed to be. And I agree with the Beatles comment too. Musically they weren't brilliant, but for their time the songwriting was phenomenal, and luckily expert musicianship wasn't really a thing until the 70's.
People don't seem to like movies that make you think, they want everything handed to them so they can sit there like a lump.
This reminds me of Cast Away which I thought was a decent go of making the audience think (by not really having much of a script). Then at the end they go and ruin it by continuing past the rescue scene, and have him go and explain everything for all the stupid people.
Governments obviously have to (or should) comply with certain IT record keeping standards
They do, which is why this article is pure crap. I worked on government agency messaging project and there's all sorts of policies about data residency, privacy, encryption, legal hold, archiving etc. We had O365 which archived a copy of every email regardless of what the user tried to do with it.
we need to stop this foolishness of non-government mail and file servers, using personal resources for official business, and not properly archiving everything, period, not daily but continuously.
Expensive but worth it.
Ok I don't know how this sort of thing get modded up since it's completely wrong.
What does non-government mail and file servers mean? A 'government' mail or file server is controlled by policy and law to behave a certain way. Since a government controls the everytihng that resides on the land it controls, it can implement those same policies and laws to any server whether public or private. Whatever risk you have with a public server is therefore the same with a private server (assume it resides within your country, which all govts require by law).
Oh but you are right, On-prem is much more expensive. But it'snot worth it, which is why the govt is outsourcing these days. ie to make things more cost effective and save tax dollars. Whatever argument you have for data retention/privacy/archiving already happens with outsourced email too.
This is what drives me nuts about the "small government" voters.
The stupid thing about the "small government" government mentality is it doesn't say what number small is, so how do you know when you've achieved your goal? It's like a license to be upset because no matter what happens you can scream smaller govt! and sound like you're right
If small government mean less employees, what number is the magic figure? What is adequately small for a country of 330 million people? 1% 0.01%? 1 person? Shouldn't government be based on needs and outcomes, not some artificially invented number of staff?
As I said, it's just stupid.
Sorry for our really fucking lame attempt at writing clickbait headlines..
I refuse to participate in this discussion because of this shit. What's wrong with "There's No Clear Evidence That Autopilot Saves Lives"? Seriously, I want an answer.
"But that $25,000 to $30,000 will result in $50,000 to $60,000 in the owner’s reduced operating costs over the 25-year life of the home’s solar system, Herro said."
So the proposed legislation will make homes more efficient, and cost less to own in the long term. Let's see how the fossil fuel lobby try to twist this.
Solar is great but the problem of storing power in an eco-friendly manner remains.
People who know more about the subject have already thought about this, it's called base load. Solar panels on homes are not meant to replace base load merely reduce the capacity requirement for base load generation and therefore pollution.
Batteries are poison. What would be better would a mechanical solution of some kind, like power-winding up a turbine during the day while it's sunny and letting it run and generate power at night.
We don't have to work it out here, smarter people than us are already working on solutions. The best thing we can do is support research and innovation and not vote for people who suppress such things.
Building standards have been common place for hundreds of years and are constantly updated. Just because the latest proposals conflict with your chosen religion doesn't make it any different.
Do you want to know what really causes rising rents?
Landlords
I'm imagining your view of a 'landlord' is like the Monopoly man Rich Uncle Penny Bags...
Not everyone wants to own property, rental properties serve a purpose, the issue is simply supply and demand.
Sounds a bit like the only true Scotsman...
The only 'true' free market is a jungle where the strong take what they want and eat the weak. I don't think anyone really wants that, so some level of regulation is required to produce the highest quality outcomes. The question is which level/type of regulation produces the best outcomes? Funnily enough we have about 200 real world examples of systems we can compare to help us work this out.
Slashdot Mirror
My solution? It wasn't my problem.
Reading you loud and clear....
Invalid comparison. The $30k is an upfront cost, and needs to have interest and maintenance and insurance added to make the comparison valid.
Maintenance? You do know how solid state technology works right?
Insurance and interest and negligible, especially if you want to get really picky and include increased value of the property over time. And if you want to really, really picky, you could argue that improved building standards improve the quality of the building requiring less maintenance, lowering insurance premiums and increasing value yet again.
Look, even if the figures are wrong, we know solar is already cost neutral in lower latitudes where they get sun. The efficiency of solar is not in question, only the detail of the actual policy (ie who is affected/exempted and for what reasons)
It's small enough when the government can't interfere with the small government types while still being big enough to interfere with those they don't like or agree with.
So how do we know when that is?
Following up from the previous response, we know Solar Panel technology gets cheaper each year while electricity prices rise. So it follows that at some point the TCO reaches a tipping point to be cost neutral. From memory that was about 10 years ago (depending on where you live/solar insolation etc), so even if the quoted figures are inaccurate, we still know that solar is already cost effective in lower latitudes.
50 to 60k is twice my 25 year total energy bill at current rates
My current bill is about $2k/year but that has doubled in the last ten years, and we know nothing ever gets cheaper.
Solar PV Cells degrade over time expected life 20 years
Cool, by how much? Because that's important you know. Most panels offer degradation down to 80% after 25 years.
Batteries ? Lucky to get 10 years out of them.
Nothing in this is about storage, so I can only assume you're trying to distract from the point
Inverters and associated equipment, likely minor efficiency degradation would have to look and really don't care to.
Of course you don't, because you've made up your mind regardless of the facts.
Bottom line you pay 25k up front, and something like another 35k over the life.
This is supposed to be news for nerds, not news for stupid people who talk out of their arse.
A 3kw system costs me $6500 installed, with 25 year warranty on panels and 10 years on the inverter (the only parts that can break), before any govt rebates.
A conservative calculation on time it would take to make back the savings is about 6 years. This means after 6 years I get 4 years free electricity, then assuming the worst and my inverter blows up one day after the tenth year, I pay $1000 for a new inverter and get the next ten years electricity for free too.
Seems like a great deal /sarcasm
Only if you have no idea what you are talking about.
Why force solar panels on a home built in the shade of a forest,
Is this common where you live? Because to me that seems like an extreme use case which would probably be dealt with int he fine print. For the other 99.99% of us that build our houses with some sort of exposure to the sun, it is isn't a big deal.
The proposed law forcing new construction to have solar power is the result of leftist fools who think their whims should be law;
You failed to explain how which is usually a bad sign...
Solar panels reduce the cost of home ownership (ie their cost is recovered by savings made over time). But somehow to you this is crazy leftist thinking. In the non-foolish right universe we all prefer to pay more for electricity?
That the citizenry of California lets them have their way shows that the whole state is insane.
If by insane you mean the wealthiest state in the nation then sure....
I'm an atheist. I have no religion. I get it, in your religion, solar panels are free. Hate to break it to you, but your religion is fake.
My solar broke even in four years making them effectively free for the next 15 plus years. Only people who don't understand what TCO is think they add cost.
"Because you say they aren't?"
No, because they aren't.
Right. You know this is just you saying they aren't over and over again?
While not entirely representative of reality, they're unscripted TV which is not what a soap opera is at all. There is no story arc.
I assure you that they are mostly scripted. I have friends in TV, I know people who have been on reality shows. It may not follow the same rigid format of a scripted show, but it there is a script, there is direction, and there are story arcs. The melodrama is scripted, and the primary driver is product placement and sponsors just like a traditional soap. Reality TV is simply the soap opera evolving to the 21st century audience. Or did you think these people get into big arguments every week, kiss and make up and then repeat it the following week for years on end and it's all real?
If you can't see that then...
...you'll keep repeating it over and over again?
That is not a truly free market because the important freedom in a free market is a “freedom from”, not a “freedom to”. My complaint is that what we have is too much like that, not too little.
'Freedom from' is a regulated market because only regulations allows protections. A true, true free market is 'freedom to', which is effectively a jungle
The discussion was about WWII,
No it wasn't.
and was pretty obvious if you bothered to read it, so your "question" was moot.
I went back and re-read it, the discussion is about America's position in the world and how that came to be. But keep avoiding the question if that makes you feel better.
To argue that the US was built "mostly on slave labour" is a total lie, and shows your lack of knowledge of the industrial revolution.
Slavery was part of the economy, you can't just pretend it didn't exist.
Nobody alive in the US was a slave, nor was anyone a slave owner.
Oh right so there's no problem then...
As for reparations, there's plenty of "affirmative action". My own company has for many years promoted and given larger pay increases to "persons of color".
And how is that working out? All problems fixed? People of colour no longer over-represented in health, employment or crime statistics?
If there's still problems, it means your solution isn't good enough.
Can you imagine seeing the inside of the Rama spacecraft on an IMAX screen?
You don't have to imagine, Elysium already ripped this concept off...
Although I think it's still incredible to this day, it should also be noted this was 1968. 2001 was revolutionary in its day. Not as much now. (I give the Beatles the same handicap. I don't think most of their music stands the test of time, but it was revolutionary in its day. Go ahead, flame me)
Same here. There is nothing from the 60's that even comes close to 2001 for the story telling. The pace was low, but it's supposed to be. And I agree with the Beatles comment too. Musically they weren't brilliant, but for their time the songwriting was phenomenal, and luckily expert musicianship wasn't really a thing until the 70's.
People don't seem to like movies that make you think, they want everything handed to them so they can sit there like a lump.
This reminds me of Cast Away which I thought was a decent go of making the audience think (by not really having much of a script). Then at the end they go and ruin it by continuing past the rescue scene, and have him go and explain everything for all the stupid people.
Too bad? Someone actually thought that would make a good headline? Slashdot is trash...
This seems like uninformed nonsense.
Governments obviously have to (or should) comply with certain IT record keeping standards
They do, which is why this article is pure crap. I worked on government agency messaging project and there's all sorts of policies about data residency, privacy, encryption, legal hold, archiving etc. We had O365 which archived a copy of every email regardless of what the user tried to do with it.
we need to stop this foolishness of non-government mail and file servers, using personal resources for official business, and not properly archiving everything, period, not daily but continuously.
Expensive but worth it.
Ok I don't know how this sort of thing get modded up since it's completely wrong.
What does non-government mail and file servers mean? A 'government' mail or file server is controlled by policy and law to behave a certain way. Since a government controls the everytihng that resides on the land it controls, it can implement those same policies and laws to any server whether public or private. Whatever risk you have with a public server is therefore the same with a private server (assume it resides within your country, which all govts require by law).
Oh but you are right, On-prem is much more expensive. But it'snot worth it, which is why the govt is outsourcing these days. ie to make things more cost effective and save tax dollars. Whatever argument you have for data retention/privacy/archiving already happens with outsourced email too.
This is what drives me nuts about the "small government" voters.
The stupid thing about the "small government" government mentality is it doesn't say what number small is, so how do you know when you've achieved your goal? It's like a license to be upset because no matter what happens you can scream smaller govt! and sound like you're right
If small government mean less employees, what number is the magic figure? What is adequately small for a country of 330 million people? 1% 0.01%? 1 person? Shouldn't government be based on needs and outcomes, not some artificially invented number of staff?
As I said, it's just stupid.
Sorry for our really fucking lame attempt at writing clickbait headlines..
I refuse to participate in this discussion because of this shit. What's wrong with "There's No Clear Evidence That Autopilot Saves Lives"? Seriously, I want an answer.
"But that $25,000 to $30,000 will result in $50,000 to $60,000 in the owner’s reduced operating costs over the 25-year life of the home’s solar system, Herro said." So the proposed legislation will make homes more efficient, and cost less to own in the long term. Let's see how the fossil fuel lobby try to twist this.
Solar is great but the problem of storing power in an eco-friendly manner remains.
People who know more about the subject have already thought about this, it's called base load. Solar panels on homes are not meant to replace base load merely reduce the capacity requirement for base load generation and therefore pollution.
Batteries are poison. What would be better would a mechanical solution of some kind, like power-winding up a turbine during the day while it's sunny and letting it run and generate power at night.
We don't have to work it out here, smarter people than us are already working on solutions. The best thing we can do is support research and innovation and not vote for people who suppress such things.
Only difference now is they made it law.
Building standards have been common place for hundreds of years and are constantly updated. Just because the latest proposals conflict with your chosen religion doesn't make it any different.
Do you want to know what really causes rising rents?
Landlords
I'm imagining your view of a 'landlord' is like the Monopoly man Rich Uncle Penny Bags...
Not everyone wants to own property, rental properties serve a purpose, the issue is simply supply and demand.
what would otherwise be a truly free market
Sounds a bit like the only true Scotsman...
The only 'true' free market is a jungle where the strong take what they want and eat the weak. I don't think anyone really wants that, so some level of regulation is required to produce the highest quality outcomes. The question is which level/type of regulation produces the best outcomes? Funnily enough we have about 200 real world examples of systems we can compare to help us work this out.