I walk my dog to the vet because I live in a city where such opportunities exist. I bike together with others because they are like me. I have a rear rack that can haul most things, including 6-10 days of groceries. I have a trailer that I can haul general construction tools, a 90lb dog, or small children. I see half a dozen parents bike their kids to daycare down the street, every morning for ~7+ months a year, in Minneapolis. I saw a guy move himself with a 13' bike trailer and perhaps the same guy move about 25 bikes on the same trailer. Lastly, I can put my bike on the train which gives me a free range of where more than I need. Then I share a car, which I can use for 5-10% of the time.
So I certainly advocate for more bike spending. But I would put this question to you, would we have modern roads at all if funding for them were predicated (initially) on the amount of people who drove?
People like cars and suburbia. Get used to it. Eventually, you may even join the club, you know, if you should marry, have kids, get a dog, and have some hobbies.
This is changing. It is inevitable that suburbia as you know it will die. I hope you get used to this idea before it affects you. Maybe you'll join the club and have all these things, as I do, at lower cost, higher quality of life, and with less negative impact, without the unsustainable highly subsidized mess of suburbia.
20 MPH can be sustained by a fit rider who is elderly.
This is delusional, over the 70,000+ miles I've ridden, both for commuting and recreation I never seen an old guy that wasn't obviously super into cycling moving that fast. I've been only able to do it for a few summers in my life. Sustaining 20mph (~30min), alone, on a non super bike is elite cycling. It requires 250-300W and that's with with an aggressive posture. It is in the range of power expenditure for normal (non stage competition) tour de france cycling....
If you aren't this guy, its time to check your wheel size on your speedo, check your slope, or check your wind speed.
wind resistance goes ^2 with speed, virtually anyone can go 15. at 18 you find out who is fit, at 20 you find out who is really in shape, and beyond 22 you find out who is aerodynamic or in a peleton. HEHE
What is the point here? We should also respect fisherman for the risks they take? Or do you just not like to respect the important accomplishments of those before you? Is this some kind of psychological issue you have with your Grampa? Snap, I think you're do for another commit on the new Twitter api.
I'm glad we have an anonymous expert on (everything?) to clear up the limitations on humanity's potential. Thankfully engineers and applied scientists have a good record of overcoming this expertise. I think there are plenty of us who would literally die trying rather than except your conclusions. So as always in the history of mankind, please understand many of us will exert influence contrary to your expert opinion.
you took a sensible position off the high dive into the deep end. There are no lies. Cheap production makes products more accessible. Apparently, you are incapable of grasping that this is not a mutually exclusive property of industrial progress / globalization. The race to the bottom does cost jobs. Real people lose jobs when industry relocates following cheap labor. It is easy from a systems perspective to understand the former property, but one lacks intelligence if they can not simultaneously grasp the latter property. In other words, please refine your simple thinking.
thats my understanding of libertarians, they just don't grasp the practical application of their theory: e.g. rand paul attempts to bridge big R and big L. It's hilarious.
voting based on the dislike of posters. Glad to learn Sweden's constituents are no better than in the US, then again I assume you are an American transplant.
I also agree that anyone who makes a mistake, error in judgement, or relies on good faith in a negotiation deserves whatever bad happens to them. Trust is for losers. And it is the duty of the strong to destroy the week.
This assumes that plant growth is limited by direct solar radiation (and not say total radiation or some other environmental variable, e.g. water, temperature, humidity, ???) Is this a true assumption? Do you have a citation for this assumption? It has sparked my curiosity.
I believe 1) it is likely there are circumstances for which this is not true 2) this has probably been characterized 3) it could be leveraged in the design of solar farming installations that in fact produce more than either would alone.
System 2kW for me gives net zero annually (~2000-2400 kWh/yr) (1200kWh/yr-kWDC Minneapolis, MN)
DIY = $1.31 WDC or
Installer = $2.50 WDC
Total costs range $3,050 - $5,450 depending on whether you allow me to do it myself (my utility does...) or I have to pay a guy to screw racks into my roof and plug and play panels...
HELOC payment = $192 - 342/yr
Electric Bill = $96-fixed - 2400kWh*0.147 (avg self consumption rate e.g. money I save from utility) = $-257/yr.
Without any incentives, if I DIY install my system and only pay for interconnection ($900-included) I am cash flow positive from day 1 with IRR of ~5%.
Claiming 30% federal tax credit, DIY IRR = 7.6%
Claiming 10% (after 2016) DIY IRR = 5.8%
Hiring a guy and taking fed tax credit IRR = 3.5%
These are all great returns compared to other possibilities in a diversified portfolio. And they are understated. My electric rates increase at an annualized rate of 1.9%. If I was a business (maybe as a homeowner?) I could access accelerated depreciation (20%/yr), which would significantly improve my rate of return. I might also leverage state incentives to improve my rate of return.
There are a few assumptions, but they don't change IRR, only how much I hassle my utility and installer...
Molten salt solar thermal is most definitely an experimental technology, in fact perpetually experimental because we've been trying to make it work for decades. Many gave up about 5 years ago due to declining costs of PV. There may be some value in the storage component, but it is most likely too expensive. The largest US SW solar thermal projects have been shuttered or converted to PV in recent years due to cost. Solana type projects are still in the pipeline due to contractual obligations...
You overstate the solar thermal pipeline in AZ. The PV pipeline is larger. And I would expect, as with other large projects, that additional CSP will be canceled in favor of cheap PV. There is vastly more PV installed and planned when considering smaller projects and total solar output.
They simply cannot fathom that the world is changing around them re: the cost and performance of batteries and PV. Surprisingly for a technical site, slashdot is home to the most dated thinking, facts, and arguments I encounter on these topics.
I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't get it. But if you have any interest in conquering your abject ignorance, I think any text from a high school business class would do. Maybe international business.
Frankly if you can't (or are unwilling to) understand my previous comment, then you are ill equipped to make even the most rudimentary financial argument or evaluate solar energy business decisions. You neglect the time value of money. You neglect the cost of capital and the consequences of debt, and effectively you neglect the purpose of just about every corporate charter ever created. You neglect the that the cost of fossil fuel alternatives are highly variable in time and geography, incentive structures are highly variable in time and geography, politics are variable in time and geography. You neglect the value of maintaining business relationships, brand development, and building out new markets. You neglect that coal isn't even available to the third largest economy on earth. You also make a major faulty assumption in that solar panel manufactures have access to the cheapest installations. Modules comprise somewhere on the order of 15 to 30% of modern installation costs. Most of the costs are outside of the expert domain of a module manufacturer. Ergo your simple-minded demands are irrelevant.
As an aside hundreds of solar facilities around the world are augmented by solar power.
Is it really that difficult for you to understand the return on equity for a business can be higher elsewhere than at home?
Slashdot Mirror
I walk my dog to the vet because I live in a city where such opportunities exist. I bike together with others because they are like me. I have a rear rack that can haul most things, including 6-10 days of groceries. I have a trailer that I can haul general construction tools, a 90lb dog, or small children. I see half a dozen parents bike their kids to daycare down the street, every morning for ~7+ months a year, in Minneapolis. I saw a guy move himself with a 13' bike trailer and perhaps the same guy move about 25 bikes on the same trailer. Lastly, I can put my bike on the train which gives me a free range of where more than I need. Then I share a car, which I can use for 5-10% of the time.
So I certainly advocate for more bike spending. But I would put this question to you, would we have modern roads at all if funding for them were predicated (initially) on the amount of people who drove?
People like cars and suburbia. Get used to it. Eventually, you may even join the club, you know, if you should marry, have kids, get a dog, and have some hobbies.
This is changing. It is inevitable that suburbia as you know it will die. I hope you get used to this idea before it affects you. Maybe you'll join the club and have all these things, as I do, at lower cost, higher quality of life, and with less negative impact, without the unsustainable highly subsidized mess of suburbia.
20 MPH can be sustained by a fit rider who is elderly. This is delusional, over the 70,000+ miles I've ridden, both for commuting and recreation I never seen an old guy that wasn't obviously super into cycling moving that fast. I've been only able to do it for a few summers in my life. Sustaining 20mph (~30min), alone, on a non super bike is elite cycling. It requires 250-300W and that's with with an aggressive posture. It is in the range of power expenditure for normal (non stage competition) tour de france cycling....
If you aren't this guy, its time to check your wheel size on your speedo, check your slope, or check your wind speed.
wind resistance goes ^2 with speed, virtually anyone can go 15. at 18 you find out who is fit, at 20 you find out who is really in shape, and beyond 22 you find out who is aerodynamic or in a peleton. HEHE
What is the point here? We should also respect fisherman for the risks they take? Or do you just not like to respect the important accomplishments of those before you? Is this some kind of psychological issue you have with your Grampa? Snap, I think you're do for another commit on the new Twitter api.
I'm glad we have an anonymous expert on (everything?) to clear up the limitations on humanity's potential. Thankfully engineers and applied scientists have a good record of overcoming this expertise. I think there are plenty of us who would literally die trying rather than except your conclusions. So as always in the history of mankind, please understand many of us will exert influence contrary to your expert opinion.
you took a sensible position off the high dive into the deep end. There are no lies. Cheap production makes products more accessible. Apparently, you are incapable of grasping that this is not a mutually exclusive property of industrial progress / globalization. The race to the bottom does cost jobs. Real people lose jobs when industry relocates following cheap labor. It is easy from a systems perspective to understand the former property, but one lacks intelligence if they can not simultaneously grasp the latter property. In other words, please refine your simple thinking.
I wonder what someone with such a self-righteous attitude does for a living.
Both parties do it. Both parties pretend to be the other guy doing it. Ergo, you have allowed your opinion of "dems" to be unfairly polluted.
thats my understanding of libertarians, they just don't grasp the practical application of their theory: e.g. rand paul attempts to bridge big R and big L. It's hilarious.
voting based on the dislike of posters. Glad to learn Sweden's constituents are no better than in the US, then again I assume you are an American transplant.
yep, because that somehow matters.
to be fair, none of them know any details about it no matter what you call it.
I would and do. Target gives me 5% on that deal.
Running kitkat on my 3.5 year old galaxy s2 for about 9 months. phone is awesome as hell.
I also agree that anyone who makes a mistake, error in judgement, or relies on good faith in a negotiation deserves whatever bad happens to them. Trust is for losers. And it is the duty of the strong to destroy the week.
This assumes that plant growth is limited by direct solar radiation (and not say total radiation or some other environmental variable, e.g. water, temperature, humidity, ???) Is this a true assumption? Do you have a citation for this assumption? It has sparked my curiosity.
I believe 1) it is likely there are circumstances for which this is not true 2) this has probably been characterized 3) it could be leveraged in the design of solar farming installations that in fact produce more than either would alone.
My borrowing rate on HELOC 3.95% at 25 years
System 2kW for me gives net zero annually (~2000-2400 kWh/yr) (1200kWh/yr-kWDC Minneapolis, MN)
DIY = $1.31 WDC or Installer = $2.50 WDC
Total costs range $3,050 - $5,450 depending on whether you allow me to do it myself (my utility does...) or I have to pay a guy to screw racks into my roof and plug and play panels...
HELOC payment = $192 - 342/yr
Electric Bill = $96-fixed - 2400kWh*0.147 (avg self consumption rate e.g. money I save from utility) = $-257/yr.
Without any incentives, if I DIY install my system and only pay for interconnection ($900-included) I am cash flow positive from day 1 with IRR of ~5%.
Claiming 30% federal tax credit, DIY IRR = 7.6%
Claiming 10% (after 2016) DIY IRR = 5.8%
Hiring a guy and taking fed tax credit IRR = 3.5%
These are all great returns compared to other possibilities in a diversified portfolio. And they are understated. My electric rates increase at an annualized rate of 1.9%. If I was a business (maybe as a homeowner?) I could access accelerated depreciation (20%/yr), which would significantly improve my rate of return. I might also leverage state incentives to improve my rate of return.
There are a few assumptions, but they don't change IRR, only how much I hassle my utility and installer...
white = 90%
black = 10%
Molten salt solar thermal is most definitely an experimental technology, in fact perpetually experimental because we've been trying to make it work for decades. Many gave up about 5 years ago due to declining costs of PV. There may be some value in the storage component, but it is most likely too expensive. The largest US SW solar thermal projects have been shuttered or converted to PV in recent years due to cost. Solana type projects are still in the pipeline due to contractual obligations...
You overstate the solar thermal pipeline in AZ. The PV pipeline is larger. And I would expect, as with other large projects, that additional CSP will be canceled in favor of cheap PV. There is vastly more PV installed and planned when considering smaller projects and total solar output.
or use the grid.
Dont' they have spill ways to keep levels? And wouldn't that be way better for the hydro guys, wind guys, and the ecosystem they previously destroyed?
They simply cannot fathom that the world is changing around them re: the cost and performance of batteries and PV. Surprisingly for a technical site, slashdot is home to the most dated thinking, facts, and arguments I encounter on these topics.
I'm afraid you are the one who doesn't get it. But if you have any interest in conquering your abject ignorance, I think any text from a high school business class would do. Maybe international business.
Frankly if you can't (or are unwilling to) understand my previous comment, then you are ill equipped to make even the most rudimentary financial argument or evaluate solar energy business decisions. You neglect the time value of money. You neglect the cost of capital and the consequences of debt, and effectively you neglect the purpose of just about every corporate charter ever created. You neglect the that the cost of fossil fuel alternatives are highly variable in time and geography, incentive structures are highly variable in time and geography, politics are variable in time and geography. You neglect the value of maintaining business relationships, brand development, and building out new markets. You neglect that coal isn't even available to the third largest economy on earth. You also make a major faulty assumption in that solar panel manufactures have access to the cheapest installations. Modules comprise somewhere on the order of 15 to 30% of modern installation costs. Most of the costs are outside of the expert domain of a module manufacturer. Ergo your simple-minded demands are irrelevant.
As an aside hundreds of solar facilities around the world are augmented by solar power.
Is it really that difficult for you to understand the return on equity for a business can be higher elsewhere than at home?
Then easy to cite. Please do. Very interesting.