Generation is also a natural monopoly. The up front cost of building new plans is what determines that.
That's like saying that owning a car is expensive because cars are fairly expensive items. Despite that, millions of people own them. And in my case, a photovoltaic system capable of powering my home would cost me less than a third of what a cheap car would cost me.
I certainly agree with the idea that every little bit helps, but that's still very far from reaching the conclusion that "nuke-hating environmentalists have caused global warming".
We're losing 1% of arable land per year. An increase of 44% by the end of the century from another source, even if it happened and the resulting soil was of sufficient quality, wouldn't even compensate for the losses if we don't stop treating arable soil as if it's expendable somehow.
No, it's still much cheaper to use electricity. It merely shrinks the gap somewhat between the capital costs of the ICE vehicle and the BEV at which you reach TCO parity.
But they would be. They would include the maintenance costs. That's why we have a special BEV rate, of course. (Alternatively, you could use GPS data for that.) Anyway, even if you fully compensate for the losses by adjusting the taxation of the BEV electricity rate, renewable electricity will still be way cheaper than gasoline. Without any taxes at all, we'd still be at $2.8/US gal, which I have to add is uncompensated for purchasing power parity. (Feel free to double it for a meaningful comparison relative to US salaries.) We're far away from reasonable oil wells but the sun shines every day here. That is why the prospect of effective "electric gasoline" cost of $0.75/US gal is even more interesting to us: our budgets are tighter so if we have to pay the same for road upkeep, we'd vastly prefer at least the energy used for transportation to be much cheaper.
One one hand, the electricity tax rate will most certainly be adjusted (this rate already includes taxes, BTW). On the other hand, electricity rates for intermittent charging of vehicles are set to drop like a brick. We're headed into a future where there's intermittently a large surplus of renewable electricity that you have to use or lose and electric vehicles are one of the few sensible applications. On the third hand, BEVs are only going to get cheaper whereas ICE vehicles are unlikely to get significantly more mature, so the decreased TCO benefit of electric vehicles after the tax adjustment is likely to get compensated for by economies of scale in vehicle battery manufacturing. The point you're describing only occurs when there's hundreds of times more electric vehicles than are on my country's roads right now anyway.
I didn't, and that's why I specifically mentioned *quality* BEVs, such as the Model S with the recently predicted usable lifetime of something like 700k-800k miles. Yes, the initial price is steep but it turns out that in our country's specific case, the car, if used frequently, practically pays for itself completely so that an ICE car wouldn't be competitive even if you got it for free.
Perhaps something like that. Ideally if it didn't distract human drivers since it's not meant for them anyway. Maybe shaping the pigment mixture's spectrum could shape the reflectivity so that the pattern would require a dichroic filter on the camera or something like that to be clearly visible.
I should't be able to steer your car into a rock face by painting a QR code on it.
And you should be able to do it with a misplaced actual sign instead? I'm not quite sure how brittleness is substantially reduced here. At least the QR code could be, I don't know, digitally signed by proper authorities or something, so that you couldn't fake it or even move it.
There are many states in the world with even higher prices. You gas buddy must be wrong. And the electricity rate is a special rate for off-peak EV charging. The usual rate is around $0.2/kWh.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you start with Pascal when you can start with Oberon?
I'm pretty sure that Russian spies *can* medal in US elections. ;)
Generation is also a natural monopoly. The up front cost of building new plans is what determines that.
That's like saying that owning a car is expensive because cars are fairly expensive items. Despite that, millions of people own them. And in my case, a photovoltaic system capable of powering my home would cost me less than a third of what a cheap car would cost me.
FAKE, it's grammatically correct and making sense! Better luck next time.
EVERYONE at that table was HINDU.
No, the Indian people were part of a Kali cult
Unless I'm missing something, that would have made them...Hindus, unsurprisingly.
I certainly agree with the idea that every little bit helps, but that's still very far from reaching the conclusion that "nuke-hating environmentalists have caused global warming".
Sounds like a reasonable estimate, but for something that grew +120% in the last fifty years, removing 13% of it is clearly not sufficient.
We're losing 1% of arable land per year. An increase of 44% by the end of the century from another source, even if it happened and the resulting soil was of sufficient quality, wouldn't even compensate for the losses if we don't stop treating arable soil as if it's expendable somehow.
First environmentalists caused global warming by blocking CO2 free nuclear power
Any amount of realistic nuclear power deployment would have been insufficient to prevent global warming on its own.
It had better be! Or otherwise our astrophysical models are very, very wrong.
No, it's still much cheaper to use electricity. It merely shrinks the gap somewhat between the capital costs of the ICE vehicle and the BEV at which you reach TCO parity.
But they would be. They would include the maintenance costs. That's why we have a special BEV rate, of course. (Alternatively, you could use GPS data for that.) Anyway, even if you fully compensate for the losses by adjusting the taxation of the BEV electricity rate, renewable electricity will still be way cheaper than gasoline. Without any taxes at all, we'd still be at $2.8/US gal, which I have to add is uncompensated for purchasing power parity. (Feel free to double it for a meaningful comparison relative to US salaries.) We're far away from reasonable oil wells but the sun shines every day here. That is why the prospect of effective "electric gasoline" cost of $0.75/US gal is even more interesting to us: our budgets are tighter so if we have to pay the same for road upkeep, we'd vastly prefer at least the energy used for transportation to be much cheaper.
They will be meta-meta-moderated.
We must faaaaart in zehr zheneral deerection!
Indeed, they are designing a methane engine now.
For the record, Ariane 5 is literally subsidized to fly.
I wish I had known years ago that all I had to do to become Russian was to disagree with someone on the internet.
I'm pretty sure they'd give offer you at least a work visa for that. Citizenship comes after that.
Because the QR code would contain the information about its supposed location in addition to the message proper?
One one hand, the electricity tax rate will most certainly be adjusted (this rate already includes taxes, BTW). On the other hand, electricity rates for intermittent charging of vehicles are set to drop like a brick. We're headed into a future where there's intermittently a large surplus of renewable electricity that you have to use or lose and electric vehicles are one of the few sensible applications. On the third hand, BEVs are only going to get cheaper whereas ICE vehicles are unlikely to get significantly more mature, so the decreased TCO benefit of electric vehicles after the tax adjustment is likely to get compensated for by economies of scale in vehicle battery manufacturing. The point you're describing only occurs when there's hundreds of times more electric vehicles than are on my country's roads right now anyway.
Creating or sharing photo-realistic AI generated porn should be sexual assault.
And while we're at it, let's ban even imagining having sex with someone without his permission! /s
I didn't, and that's why I specifically mentioned *quality* BEVs, such as the Model S with the recently predicted usable lifetime of something like 700k-800k miles. Yes, the initial price is steep but it turns out that in our country's specific case, the car, if used frequently, practically pays for itself completely so that an ICE car wouldn't be competitive even if you got it for free.
Perhaps something like that. Ideally if it didn't distract human drivers since it's not meant for them anyway. Maybe shaping the pigment mixture's spectrum could shape the reflectivity so that the pattern would require a dichroic filter on the camera or something like that to be clearly visible.
I should't be able to steer your car into a rock face by painting a QR code on it.
And you should be able to do it with a misplaced actual sign instead? I'm not quite sure how brittleness is substantially reduced here. At least the QR code could be, I don't know, digitally signed by proper authorities or something, so that you couldn't fake it or even move it.
I am indeed a bit off, by about 6000 miles from California.
There are many states in the world with even higher prices. You gas buddy must be wrong. And the electricity rate is a special rate for off-peak EV charging. The usual rate is around $0.2/kWh.
I found another non-top-of-a-volcano place with +50% percent generation compared to the originally proposed place. Maybe one could start with that?