You can't even decide to drop the empty div, because with today's sites that are driven entirely by javascript, who knows if that div will at some point include content that must be rendered?
The empty div is on top the video player and is hidden. Is it capturing clicks on the video? Is it just an artifact of a framework update? Are there other examples of empty divs on Web sites floating on top things?
It's also odd that the entire argument is over an empty div and not a slew of pattern behavior of Google sabotaging Edge.
working from say a "home office" hasn't been shown to be real good for productivity or information security
Virtual infrastructure and the whole Google platform provide for that. If you've connecting via VPN, then I have your home network plugged into my corporate LAN; whereas with e.g. Office365 and SharePoint Online or Gmail and Google Drive, there's no such bridge. Use a U2F Security Key to authenticate and you avoid credential theft. You can do most work from a Chromebook, which inherits the protection of a Chromebook (not being Windows, a strict security model, and containerization as a context partition), for what that's worth.
Close collaboration and team work suffers when people are not actually face to face
Open source projects seem to get along fine, although many suffer from undermanagement (the opposite problem of micromanagement). A virtual office can put consultants closer to clients, which is more-important than putting them in the same room with each other and with management.
I wouldn't mind working for a San Francisco company at their wage scale from here in the Midwest
Scattered coworking spaces and work-from-home with virtual offices.
My new venture, Moonset Technologies (primary subsidiary: Secure Democratic Election Services), uses Google services with mandatory 2FA (security keys), Digital Ocean for hosting, and a local incubator coworking space. I'm all-in on video conferencing and do not require the board to all be in one room ever. If I need to hire an engineer in a region, then I can hire one.
E-mail, documents, and other such things hosted by Google have Google's security. That is to say: their network is their business; our responsibility is using 2FA, controlling what's shared and searchable, and otherwise not shooting ourselves in the foot. Digital Ocean provides firewalling, back-ups, and so forth, and authenticates via Google--which, when enabled, REQUIRES Google log-in, so you can't use a stolen password to log in "directly" (instant 2FA). Site's on WordPress with WordFence because I judge the offset risk when using WordFence lower than the risk of using something other than WordPress to avoid WordPress vulnerabilities; and the Web site isn't hosted in such a way that it can be used to attack other assets.
So there's an array of benefits here for the business (simplified management, security, etc.), the worker (less travel), and the environment (less commuting, consolidated working space, employee benefit paying ~$25/mo if they purchase a 100% clean-energy contract from any supplier for their home electricity, etc.). It doesn't solve all our problems, but it takes a step.
A business is organization, providing efficiency, lowering the total cost to supply something. Some people think a business is overhead and that artisan, hand-made everything would somehow be cheaper.
I need you to send written expert testimony to my State legislature, as I'm proposing we eliminate the water and sewage charge. We've been force-selling people's houses as the charge increases, and I believe a 0.11% income tax would cover the reasonable use load. I need information about anywhere already doing this.
Many people don't seem to understand that the poor and the rich can drive roughly the same amount of miles (fuel taxes), consume the same amount of alcohol and cigarettes, and use the same amount of cell phone service.
Even if a rich person consumes 10x as much fuel and 100x as much alcohol, the tax is generally a smaller fraction of their income than it is for a poor person. It hits middle-class harder, since the marginal utility of any spending is lower, so they'll toss more pennies here and there for texting and tie themselves to service more.
So of course it sounds good: people are richer, they buy more, they get taxed more. Then: rich people take trips to Europe and buy tons of alcohol over there to throw a party for investors. No sales tax. No excise tax. They might pay VAT to Germany, but they're not paying it to their home state. That lost tax revenue comes from the poor and middle-class.
Baltimore could increase municipal taxes to provide free transport within its borders and leave West Maryland out of it.
If Baltimore becomes wealthier, some of that wealth will tax-transfer to West Maryland due to the impact on the State's general GDP. We can't leave West Maryland out of it.
By the same token, if we make West Maryland pay for it, the impact on Maryland's GDP will return dividends to West Maryland, which means West Maryland comes out wealthier than they started. You're basically saying West Maryland should be left behind and not be made wealthier.
is it more fair to treat everyone equally or to try and make their outcomes equal?
Equitability is trying to make their opportunity equal. If you run around a circular track, the outer circle is longer than the inner circle; so instead of starting everyone at 0 degrees, we start some people ahead of others. On an oval track, you're started several meters forward on a straight area, so it looks like you start "ahead" because the road is longer. If you want to win, you still have to be actually faster than the next runner.
As stated above, the question of treating people equally is complex.
There's $60,000 of income per person in the US (it's like $85,000 per worker) and a 40-hour job is $30/hr (plus two weeks vacation). Some people make $12/hr; some make $120/hr; some make $500/hr. All jobs are necessary, even if some produce more than others: replacing a burger-flipper with a burger-flipping machine requires more total labor investment (currently) than just having a grill and an employee, and we keep buying hamburgers.
So even if everyone had the same education and investment, many need to stock Walmart shelves and flip hamburgers. Should they pay an equal tax (e.g. $5,000/year), an equal-rate tax (e.g. 30% of income), or a progressive tax adjusted to their income such that people benefitting less than average from our society (and struggling more to survive) keep more of their income while the rich are still rich but pay a larger portion of their own income?
If you have $1,000,000/year of income and pay 40% in taxes, that's 40% of your hours, or 16 hours per week. For the average $60,000/year income, that $400,000 represents 13,333 hours of work. For less than half a week's work, you get paid for almost 7 weeks of the average person's work. What's left after your taxes for the year? 500 weeks of the average person's work.
You're taking home 500 people's gross pay. The average person, paying 28% in taxes, is taking home 0.72 people's gross pay while investing equal time.
So every kWh I buy costs me $0.20, but every kWh I sell earns me ~$0.08. The fact that the account is only settled once a year doesn't really change that.
If you were doing this intra-day with a battery, you'd store in the battery, then draw off the battery until empty, then draw from the meter. You'd net-consume more on billing spans longer than the period of net-consumption (i.e. on billing spans longer than 8-12 hours) due to loss to battery storage.
By billing once per 1 hour, if you spend 14 hours producing and 10 hours consuming each day, net-overproducing 3kWh by producing 30kWh and consuming 27kWh back from the grid, they would be able to bill you for 27kWh @ $0.20/kWh = $5.40 and then credit you for 30kWh @ 0.08/kWh = $2.40 each day. Across a year, you'd net-owe $1,095.
By settling once per year, each day is a net 3kWh overproduction. You will end up settling with them owing you $87.60 at the end of each year.
With battery storage at 90% efficiency, you'd store 1,095kWh and recover 985.5kWh. Ultimately, the power company would owe you $78.84 at the end of each year. The Tesla Powerwall starts life with an efficiency of 92.5% at 2kW charging rate and 25C operating temperature.
Thus, settling once per year drastically changes how much each overproduced kWh affects your ultimate utility bill; and using a battery incurs a cost when settling on longer than cycle periods. (The cycle period is really a year, due to changing daily production across the year.)
It depends on what you want to call "fair". Taxes are the analogy for the fallacy of fairness.
Each person is a whole person, and should pay a fair share. We should tax them flat, e.g., $1,000 per person. If you can't pay, we arrest you and force you into prison slave labor.
Each person works similar or the same relative hours, or is unable to work (often due to economic conditions of jobs not being available in their area). They receive dissimilar income, and should pay a fair share. We should tax them a flat rate, e.g., 30%, such that a person making $10,000 pays $3,000 and a person making $1,000,000 pays $300,000.
Persons with lower income are more-heavily impacted by higher tax rates due to the high marginal utility of every dollar, while the poorest represent relatively little taxable income. We work the same relative hours, yet some earn much less than the per-capita income and some earn much greater than it. They should pay a fair share. We should use a progressive tax rate, with little coming from the poor and much coming from the rich.
Each of these can be called fair or unfair.
The last one is equitable: it identifies disadvantages of some groups and adjusts accordingly.
There's another consideration: efficiency.
Economists have shown that direct cash transfers from rich to poor increase GDP and thus overall wealth, meaning that the rich end up overall richer in the end. This is, of course, subject to the normal caveats of economics: for any given economic conditions, a maximum benefit to the economy as a whole and its members individually occurs at some point X; below and above that, the economy suffers.
In other words: even the most basic form of transfer--giving people cash--can cause an increase in overall wealth, elevating even the wealthy (who profit off the economy as a whole); but jacking up taxes excessively will damage the economy and cause a slowdown, making even the poor more-poor.
In the extreme: people living under a properly-operating government experience greater wealth growth than people living in anarchy.
We can examine transit fees and do some logical reasoning to see how this impacts the economy.
In poverty-stricken areas, there isn't a lot of wealth flowing in--if there were, then there would be jobs, people would be working, people would be spending, and people would be wealthy. Access to jobs through public transit allows people in those areas to work in wealthier areas, earning an income, which then comes back to their area of residence. Convenience services--e.g. a corner grocery store--become a destination for some of that income, being spent into the local economy, creating jobs in the area.
The goods and services consumed in the lower-income area are of lower quality and price; therefor a particular amount of spending creates more jobs. If you're shopping for premium clothes and groceries, you buy the same quantity of goods and spend more; for discount goods, you spend less. With more goods moving, you need more people stocking shelves and running cash registers, thus more jobs.
More people working means more people being taxed--even operating a cash register is productive, as it allows selling, which is movement of goods, which is necessary and useful, thus a taxable productive activity because it represents wealth--which means more revenue at the same tax rates.
Ultimately, as these local economies become strong and stable, they become capable of providing better labor capital and good locations for business expansion. More-productive business can be carried out, and the economy as a whole grows.
With this growth, whichever people are positioned to profit from the overall economy will become richer: the output is bigger than the input. Those people also tend to already be rich, since they'd necessarily need to e.g. own franchise chains and have the capital to expand into the now-less-poor areas to get at some of that
When I get home, the sun is setting but I'm using more electricity now, so I'm buying back that power at maybe 20 cents per kilowatt-hour
That's illegal in many states. When someone overgenerates, the nearest instantaneous net-consumer consumes, and so the distance of transmission is generally low. This reduces load and wear on parts between the power generation facility and the consumer, lowering costs. Accordingly, many states prohibit refunding power either at wholesale or only by itself, and require actually billing net per period: if you consume 800kWh and produce 600kWh, you only pay for 200kWh.
Of course not. My point is unless consumption coincides with production, "The laundromat down the street" is not getting 2kW from you, ever.
True, with reframe: if there is ever a time when production exceeds consumption, there will be loss. If there isn't, then storage is loss.
Not yet, no, and that's exactly my point. Because it will take a long time to transition to renewable energy that requires storage, it's okay for storage deployment to lag behind renewable deployment.
That's what I've been saying: if you're never able to run the whole surrounding grid on pure clean-renewable, then any storage is a waste. We accept the waste for back-up power (i.e. "cost"); that doesn't make it efficient.
The grid is a replacement for storage when there is always demand exceeding supply, since storage is more-wasteful than use. So long as there isn't excess clean-renewable energy (i.e. zero non-clean energy in use), storage is a continuity measure to protect against grid failure.
My local college has 5MW of generating capacity and supplies about 1/4 of its own electricity needs.
Difficulty: The laundromat down the street is busiest after 5PM when your solar panels aren't producing as much. You're probably also home at that point, using more power yourself.
Is everyone and everything self-sufficient during the day? Have we eliminated all utility power?
Now, there is a LONG WAY TO GO before energy storage becomes necessary, but there's no reason there can't be benefits to it now. Especially for solar, where peak production does perfectly not coincide with peak consumption.
Is 100% of our energy solar at any point during the day?
batteries for home use are not "a huge waste" IMHO.
If it's less-efficient than the alternatives, multiplied by the size of the entire frigging grid, yes it's a huge waste. Batteries are, at best, a back-up power solution for when utility power fails. Batteries as a broad grid storage solution or an off-grid home are a waste.
Oh, we don't use that anymore. We use a layered roof with a water-repellent top, radiant barrier, impact gel sandwiched into the middle sheathing layer and flashed down the sides, finished with rafters and insulation before enclosing the ceiling. They last forever.
I'm seeing $6,000 for 6,760W of solar panels (assembled in USA), or $8,000 for 8,190W (Canadian-made). Around $3,300 for a 10,000W power optimizer kit or $2,000 for 26 microinverters. Looking at about $2,000 of installation materials. The labor costs are negligible at home-build time, since you're basically bolting them to a roof and running electricity--you're already building the roof and running power anyway, just slapping in another $200 circuit breaker set.
So around $13,500 for an 8kW system, no subsidies. Getting down to around $10k for a 6kW system.
Batteries are stupid. You're plugged into an electrical grid which can shift the load wherever is most-efficient. You're producing 2kW more than necessary? The laundromat down the street is getting 2kW from you, with lower transmission distance, thus lower loss.
You're hooked up to battery power instead of the grid? You lose 10% to 30% of your energy to charging (in the ideal case, with voltage just slightly above battery voltage, Li+ can charge at 99% efficiency; but you don't have a choice, you have electricity NOW and you're shoving it into that battery as hard as it will go).
They're a nice home backup power strategy, but not a great energy storage solution. Off-grid in general is a huge waste.
Some things are cheaper than free. To a certain extent, direct cash transfers cause an increase in GDP/C, decrease in unemployment, reduction of welfare claims, lower crime, and so forth, meaning that something like a Universal Dividend can actually reduce the operating cost of government and lead to lower taxes, while also increasing economic activity and making the rich richer.
I've proposed Maryland take this step. It would cost a tax increase such that someone making $100,000/year is paying around $80-$150 more in taxes per year.
That ignores all costs of administrating the ticketing system and all savings otherwise produced.
The "anyway" implies there was a usually-contraindicating factor--that the outcome would have resulted in a situation not occurring--but the situation occurred anyway.
"He had a girlfriend, but he slept with the girl from the bar anyway."
It is a common English idiom, kind of like how "slept with" doesn't actually mean sleeping, even if that's what the words in the dictionary tell you.
Of course some people are super sheltered, and don't quite get what someone means when they say they "slept with" someone they met at the bar.
There's a begging-the-question fallacy in there: Facebook analyzed the risk, then took action. The "anyway" implies they found the risks beyond some threshold.
Question: was there a methodology for determining if the action was too risky?
Question: did they determine the action was too risky?
Question: was their determination based on an internal standard or on a common criteria?
He missed the one where the PM said there was a "PR" risk. Was that Privacy Risk or Public Relations? Is the summary trying to imply that the PM thought it was a Privacy Risk when the PM was talking about Public Relations?
Welcome to lying without stating untrue things. The questions above will either lead to facts which support the implications (truth) OR to facts which debase the implications (lies), but nothing that was stated was false.
It's not just that the protocol is open. You can disassemble the binary into code, dump the running process, and do other things to check out what's going on with it. With several billion people, some subset is both capable and interested in doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't even decide to drop the empty div, because with today's sites that are driven entirely by javascript, who knows if that div will at some point include content that must be rendered?
The empty div is on top the video player and is hidden. Is it capturing clicks on the video? Is it just an artifact of a framework update? Are there other examples of empty divs on Web sites floating on top things?
It's also odd that the entire argument is over an empty div and not a slew of pattern behavior of Google sabotaging Edge.
working from say a "home office" hasn't been shown to be real good for productivity or information security
Virtual infrastructure and the whole Google platform provide for that. If you've connecting via VPN, then I have your home network plugged into my corporate LAN; whereas with e.g. Office365 and SharePoint Online or Gmail and Google Drive, there's no such bridge. Use a U2F Security Key to authenticate and you avoid credential theft. You can do most work from a Chromebook, which inherits the protection of a Chromebook (not being Windows, a strict security model, and containerization as a context partition), for what that's worth.
Close collaboration and team work suffers when people are not actually face to face
Open source projects seem to get along fine, although many suffer from undermanagement (the opposite problem of micromanagement). A virtual office can put consultants closer to clients, which is more-important than putting them in the same room with each other and with management.
I wouldn't mind working for a San Francisco company at their wage scale from here in the Midwest
I'm actually in the middle of Baltimore City.
You need to get folks to live where they work
Scattered coworking spaces and work-from-home with virtual offices.
My new venture, Moonset Technologies (primary subsidiary: Secure Democratic Election Services), uses Google services with mandatory 2FA (security keys), Digital Ocean for hosting, and a local incubator coworking space. I'm all-in on video conferencing and do not require the board to all be in one room ever. If I need to hire an engineer in a region, then I can hire one.
E-mail, documents, and other such things hosted by Google have Google's security. That is to say: their network is their business; our responsibility is using 2FA, controlling what's shared and searchable, and otherwise not shooting ourselves in the foot. Digital Ocean provides firewalling, back-ups, and so forth, and authenticates via Google--which, when enabled, REQUIRES Google log-in, so you can't use a stolen password to log in "directly" (instant 2FA). Site's on WordPress with WordFence because I judge the offset risk when using WordFence lower than the risk of using something other than WordPress to avoid WordPress vulnerabilities; and the Web site isn't hosted in such a way that it can be used to attack other assets.
So there's an array of benefits here for the business (simplified management, security, etc.), the worker (less travel), and the environment (less commuting, consolidated working space, employee benefit paying ~$25/mo if they purchase a 100% clean-energy contract from any supplier for their home electricity, etc.). It doesn't solve all our problems, but it takes a step.
A business is organization, providing efficiency, lowering the total cost to supply something. Some people think a business is overhead and that artisan, hand-made everything would somehow be cheaper.
I need you to send written expert testimony to my State legislature, as I'm proposing we eliminate the water and sewage charge. We've been force-selling people's houses as the charge increases, and I believe a 0.11% income tax would cover the reasonable use load. I need information about anywhere already doing this.
Many people don't seem to understand that the poor and the rich can drive roughly the same amount of miles (fuel taxes), consume the same amount of alcohol and cigarettes, and use the same amount of cell phone service.
Even if a rich person consumes 10x as much fuel and 100x as much alcohol, the tax is generally a smaller fraction of their income than it is for a poor person. It hits middle-class harder, since the marginal utility of any spending is lower, so they'll toss more pennies here and there for texting and tie themselves to service more.
So of course it sounds good: people are richer, they buy more, they get taxed more. Then: rich people take trips to Europe and buy tons of alcohol over there to throw a party for investors. No sales tax. No excise tax. They might pay VAT to Germany, but they're not paying it to their home state. That lost tax revenue comes from the poor and middle-class.
RISC-V is going to revolutionize everything.
Baltimore could increase municipal taxes to provide free transport within its borders and leave West Maryland out of it.
If Baltimore becomes wealthier, some of that wealth will tax-transfer to West Maryland due to the impact on the State's general GDP. We can't leave West Maryland out of it.
By the same token, if we make West Maryland pay for it, the impact on Maryland's GDP will return dividends to West Maryland, which means West Maryland comes out wealthier than they started. You're basically saying West Maryland should be left behind and not be made wealthier.
is it more fair to treat everyone equally or to try and make their outcomes equal?
Equitability is trying to make their opportunity equal. If you run around a circular track, the outer circle is longer than the inner circle; so instead of starting everyone at 0 degrees, we start some people ahead of others. On an oval track, you're started several meters forward on a straight area, so it looks like you start "ahead" because the road is longer. If you want to win, you still have to be actually faster than the next runner.
As stated above, the question of treating people equally is complex.
There's $60,000 of income per person in the US (it's like $85,000 per worker) and a 40-hour job is $30/hr (plus two weeks vacation). Some people make $12/hr; some make $120/hr; some make $500/hr. All jobs are necessary, even if some produce more than others: replacing a burger-flipper with a burger-flipping machine requires more total labor investment (currently) than just having a grill and an employee, and we keep buying hamburgers.
So even if everyone had the same education and investment, many need to stock Walmart shelves and flip hamburgers. Should they pay an equal tax (e.g. $5,000/year), an equal-rate tax (e.g. 30% of income), or a progressive tax adjusted to their income such that people benefitting less than average from our society (and struggling more to survive) keep more of their income while the rich are still rich but pay a larger portion of their own income?
If you have $1,000,000/year of income and pay 40% in taxes, that's 40% of your hours, or 16 hours per week. For the average $60,000/year income, that $400,000 represents 13,333 hours of work. For less than half a week's work, you get paid for almost 7 weeks of the average person's work. What's left after your taxes for the year? 500 weeks of the average person's work.
You're taking home 500 people's gross pay. The average person, paying 28% in taxes, is taking home 0.72 people's gross pay while investing equal time.
Seems fine to me.
So every kWh I buy costs me $0.20, but every kWh I sell earns me ~$0.08. The fact that the account is only settled once a year doesn't really change that.
If you were doing this intra-day with a battery, you'd store in the battery, then draw off the battery until empty, then draw from the meter. You'd net-consume more on billing spans longer than the period of net-consumption (i.e. on billing spans longer than 8-12 hours) due to loss to battery storage.
By billing once per 1 hour, if you spend 14 hours producing and 10 hours consuming each day, net-overproducing 3kWh by producing 30kWh and consuming 27kWh back from the grid, they would be able to bill you for 27kWh @ $0.20/kWh = $5.40 and then credit you for 30kWh @ 0.08/kWh = $2.40 each day. Across a year, you'd net-owe $1,095.
By settling once per year, each day is a net 3kWh overproduction. You will end up settling with them owing you $87.60 at the end of each year.
With battery storage at 90% efficiency, you'd store 1,095kWh and recover 985.5kWh. Ultimately, the power company would owe you $78.84 at the end of each year. The Tesla Powerwall starts life with an efficiency of 92.5% at 2kW charging rate and 25C operating temperature.
Thus, settling once per year drastically changes how much each overproduced kWh affects your ultimate utility bill; and using a battery incurs a cost when settling on longer than cycle periods. (The cycle period is really a year, due to changing daily production across the year.)
Batteries don't produce electricity.
It depends on what you want to call "fair". Taxes are the analogy for the fallacy of fairness.
Each person is a whole person, and should pay a fair share. We should tax them flat, e.g., $1,000 per person. If you can't pay, we arrest you and force you into prison slave labor.
Each person works similar or the same relative hours, or is unable to work (often due to economic conditions of jobs not being available in their area). They receive dissimilar income, and should pay a fair share. We should tax them a flat rate, e.g., 30%, such that a person making $10,000 pays $3,000 and a person making $1,000,000 pays $300,000.
Persons with lower income are more-heavily impacted by higher tax rates due to the high marginal utility of every dollar, while the poorest represent relatively little taxable income. We work the same relative hours, yet some earn much less than the per-capita income and some earn much greater than it. They should pay a fair share. We should use a progressive tax rate, with little coming from the poor and much coming from the rich.
Each of these can be called fair or unfair.
The last one is equitable: it identifies disadvantages of some groups and adjusts accordingly.
There's another consideration: efficiency.
Economists have shown that direct cash transfers from rich to poor increase GDP and thus overall wealth, meaning that the rich end up overall richer in the end. This is, of course, subject to the normal caveats of economics: for any given economic conditions, a maximum benefit to the economy as a whole and its members individually occurs at some point X; below and above that, the economy suffers.
In other words: even the most basic form of transfer--giving people cash--can cause an increase in overall wealth, elevating even the wealthy (who profit off the economy as a whole); but jacking up taxes excessively will damage the economy and cause a slowdown, making even the poor more-poor.
In the extreme: people living under a properly-operating government experience greater wealth growth than people living in anarchy.
We can examine transit fees and do some logical reasoning to see how this impacts the economy.
In poverty-stricken areas, there isn't a lot of wealth flowing in--if there were, then there would be jobs, people would be working, people would be spending, and people would be wealthy. Access to jobs through public transit allows people in those areas to work in wealthier areas, earning an income, which then comes back to their area of residence. Convenience services--e.g. a corner grocery store--become a destination for some of that income, being spent into the local economy, creating jobs in the area.
The goods and services consumed in the lower-income area are of lower quality and price; therefor a particular amount of spending creates more jobs. If you're shopping for premium clothes and groceries, you buy the same quantity of goods and spend more; for discount goods, you spend less. With more goods moving, you need more people stocking shelves and running cash registers, thus more jobs.
More people working means more people being taxed--even operating a cash register is productive, as it allows selling, which is movement of goods, which is necessary and useful, thus a taxable productive activity because it represents wealth--which means more revenue at the same tax rates.
Ultimately, as these local economies become strong and stable, they become capable of providing better labor capital and good locations for business expansion. More-productive business can be carried out, and the economy as a whole grows.
With this growth, whichever people are positioned to profit from the overall economy will become richer: the output is bigger than the input. Those people also tend to already be rich, since they'd necessarily need to e.g. own franchise chains and have the capital to expand into the now-less-poor areas to get at some of that
When I get home, the sun is setting but I'm using more electricity now, so I'm buying back that power at maybe 20 cents per kilowatt-hour
That's illegal in many states. When someone overgenerates, the nearest instantaneous net-consumer consumes, and so the distance of transmission is generally low. This reduces load and wear on parts between the power generation facility and the consumer, lowering costs. Accordingly, many states prohibit refunding power either at wholesale or only by itself, and require actually billing net per period: if you consume 800kWh and produce 600kWh, you only pay for 200kWh.
Of course not. My point is unless consumption coincides with production, "The laundromat down the street" is not getting 2kW from you, ever.
True, with reframe: if there is ever a time when production exceeds consumption, there will be loss. If there isn't, then storage is loss.
Not yet, no, and that's exactly my point. Because it will take a long time to transition to renewable energy that requires storage, it's okay for storage deployment to lag behind renewable deployment.
That's what I've been saying: if you're never able to run the whole surrounding grid on pure clean-renewable, then any storage is a waste. We accept the waste for back-up power (i.e. "cost"); that doesn't make it efficient.
The grid is a replacement for storage when there is always demand exceeding supply, since storage is more-wasteful than use. So long as there isn't excess clean-renewable energy (i.e. zero non-clean energy in use), storage is a continuity measure to protect against grid failure.
My local college has 5MW of generating capacity and supplies about 1/4 of its own electricity needs.
Wouldn't Arizona pay CA to take its excess power? Otherwise, why doesn't CA just make e-diesel, sucking carbon out of the air to make liquid fuel oil?
The OP said $20k for a 6kW system, no subsidies.
An 8kW system is around $13,500, no subsidies.
That's private, no government mandate. You're not spending $20k on 6kW. You can buy a bigger system--say, 12kW--and it won't cost you $40k for 12kW.
Difficulty: The laundromat down the street is busiest after 5PM when your solar panels aren't producing as much. You're probably also home at that point, using more power yourself.
Is everyone and everything self-sufficient during the day? Have we eliminated all utility power?
Now, there is a LONG WAY TO GO before energy storage becomes necessary, but there's no reason there can't be benefits to it now. Especially for solar, where peak production does perfectly not coincide with peak consumption.
Is 100% of our energy solar at any point during the day?
batteries for home use are not "a huge waste" IMHO.
If it's less-efficient than the alternatives, multiplied by the size of the entire frigging grid, yes it's a huge waste. Batteries are, at best, a back-up power solution for when utility power fails. Batteries as a broad grid storage solution or an off-grid home are a waste.
Oh, we don't use that anymore. We use a layered roof with a water-repellent top, radiant barrier, impact gel sandwiched into the middle sheathing layer and flashed down the sides, finished with rafters and insulation before enclosing the ceiling. They last forever.
The ROI is like 6-8 years.
I'm seeing $6,000 for 6,760W of solar panels (assembled in USA), or $8,000 for 8,190W (Canadian-made). Around $3,300 for a 10,000W power optimizer kit or $2,000 for 26 microinverters. Looking at about $2,000 of installation materials. The labor costs are negligible at home-build time, since you're basically bolting them to a roof and running electricity--you're already building the roof and running power anyway, just slapping in another $200 circuit breaker set.
So around $13,500 for an 8kW system, no subsidies. Getting down to around $10k for a 6kW system.
Batteries are stupid. You're plugged into an electrical grid which can shift the load wherever is most-efficient. You're producing 2kW more than necessary? The laundromat down the street is getting 2kW from you, with lower transmission distance, thus lower loss.
You're hooked up to battery power instead of the grid? You lose 10% to 30% of your energy to charging (in the ideal case, with voltage just slightly above battery voltage, Li+ can charge at 99% efficiency; but you don't have a choice, you have electricity NOW and you're shoving it into that battery as hard as it will go).
They're a nice home backup power strategy, but not a great energy storage solution. Off-grid in general is a huge waste.
Some things are cheaper than free. To a certain extent, direct cash transfers cause an increase in GDP/C, decrease in unemployment, reduction of welfare claims, lower crime, and so forth, meaning that something like a Universal Dividend can actually reduce the operating cost of government and lead to lower taxes, while also increasing economic activity and making the rich richer.
I've proposed Maryland take this step. It would cost a tax increase such that someone making $100,000/year is paying around $80-$150 more in taxes per year.
That ignores all costs of administrating the ticketing system and all savings otherwise produced.
The "anyway" implies there was a usually-contraindicating factor--that the outcome would have resulted in a situation not occurring--but the situation occurred anyway.
"He had a girlfriend, but he slept with the girl from the bar anyway."
It is a common English idiom, kind of like how "slept with" doesn't actually mean sleeping, even if that's what the words in the dictionary tell you.
Of course some people are super sheltered, and don't quite get what someone means when they say they "slept with" someone they met at the bar.
There's a begging-the-question fallacy in there: Facebook analyzed the risk, then took action. The "anyway" implies they found the risks beyond some threshold.
Question: was there a methodology for determining if the action was too risky?
Question: did they determine the action was too risky?
Question: was their determination based on an internal standard or on a common criteria?
He missed the one where the PM said there was a "PR" risk. Was that Privacy Risk or Public Relations? Is the summary trying to imply that the PM thought it was a Privacy Risk when the PM was talking about Public Relations?
Welcome to lying without stating untrue things. The questions above will either lead to facts which support the implications (truth) OR to facts which debase the implications (lies), but nothing that was stated was false.
Do not lie to Friend Computer.
It's not just that the protocol is open. You can disassemble the binary into code, dump the running process, and do other things to check out what's going on with it. With several billion people, some subset is both capable and interested in doing so.