Ray is right about the drive for impeachment (and wasn't it those very Democrats who were concerned that President Trump wouldn't abide by the election - the exact same thing they seek to do?). It will be a waste of effort (there is nothing illegal or a "high crime" or even misdemeanor suggested - it's just "Orange Man Bad"), and if they can get enough together to pass articles of impeachment - it will go NO WHERE in the Senate.
And your trolling must include the BBC and Reuters. I guess it's a world-wide conspiracyto build a lie that South Africa will expropriate land without compensation? Either that or the SJW snowflake of an AC is hurt that the facts don't support their delicate world-view...
Around here (Ventura area, near the beach), solar doesn't add any ROI to the resale. Most people don't have AC systems, let alone solar because it doesn't pay off. Put a $10K solar system on your house, you'll be lucky to get half that as value. And probably less, as most roofs are tiled, and in an earthquake bolts through tiles are the first things to cause roofing failures (which is why pretty much everything up near the top of a house, like a satellite dish, is installed on the eaves or sides of the home, into wood - not roofing tiles).
Don't worry - that initial $10K estimate from the State is rock-solid! After all, we were told the $100 billion, 100 MPH high speed train from Bakersfield to Modesto is only going to cost $16 billion and it runs from LA to San Francisco in just 2 hours!
To comply with this change, TFA says it would cost about $10k, on homes that cost on average $550k.
At least in my neighborhood (selling prices around $700K), $10K would be a solid 7-8 years of electricity costs. Add in additional taxation and insurance costs, and it's probably going to be 9 years to break even. Opportunity costs of investment of that $10K make it, at best, a push over a 20-25 year timespan (typical quote for solar panel lifespans).
For a person buying their first home, that $10,000 is an up-front cost, and may preclude them from buying that home, thus never realizing an amortized cost over the next 30 years. Doesn't matter how much you save over 30 years, if your up-front costs are too high to purchase in the first place.
Yes, yes they did. Interestingly, it is now explicitly legal to discriminate on boards of directors against transsexual and intersex folks, because the law only states that women must be included. Since there is now a defined list of who must be on a board - men and women - it implicitly means you do NOT have to have anyone else, so feel free to discriminate as you like!
Name one california regulation or government over reach? Name one? Waiting?
Prop 65 warnings. Seriously, toast and prune juice are on the Prop 65 list as "dangerous items" for human consumption. If that's not a regulatory overreach - prune juice and toast, for crying out loud - then I don't know what is. And if you don't label something with a Prop 65 warning - you open yourself up to massive litigation.
Precisely. I never understood a "nuisance tax" called a fare, when the fare covers a small portion of costs and also serves to restrict use. Make transit free, eat the remaining 10-20% of costs, and see if ridership increases.
I never said we shouldn't pay or subsidize transit; in fact, I was pointing out that it pretty much is, effectively, fully subsidized - everywhere. Charging a small, nominal fare that covers a very small part of the cost is more a nuisance tax than anything. Transit is already effectively paid for by tax dollars, it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch to go full-subsidy.
One interesting thing to note is that Luxembourg is the country with the highest external debt (by percent of GDP and per capita) in the world; I guess it's time to toss more debt dollars on that pile!
With falling market share, and flat unit sales, the only way to increase revenue and keep that stock price climbing is by charging more per unit. So - they do. And they do their best to market that increased price as best they can, to drive the dwindling consumer demand to pay that higher price.
How many transit systems actually operate at a profit? In most of the US, transit systems operate at significant losses, with something like 70-80% of the costs covered by general taxes, not the ticket. And the transit is often-times under-utilized. Moving to a free model may just fill up the transit systems, for not a whole lot more tax dollars.
According to this, Panasonic has put about $5.5 billion in to the factory, and Tesla has put about $0.6 billion into it. So it's about 90% Panasonic's money, and most of their technology, in the Gigafactory.
Worked before, but people are too enthralled having a Federal Government spend over $1100 per month for every man, woman, and child in the US. Uncle Sugar has too many hooked...
Turmp has yet to have a filibuster proof Senate. Obama didn't do anything about the economy, he claimed 2% GDP growth was the new normal, and we should just get used to 7% unemployment. Somehow he gets to shuffle everything bad off to Bush - but everything good that Trump does goes to him. I guess that's why the markets exploded literally the day after the election - because Obama?
They cite the tariffs amongst a litany of reasons. Notably GM. Of course, Ford was ahead of the curve, saw the falling US demand for cars (it's skyrocketing for SUVs and trucks) and already cut down its offerings. GM was slow to respond to the market change, and is now fishing about for any reason it can...
We need to assign about 89% of all externalities for fossil fuels to renewables. Why? Renewables are about 11% of our total energy supply, meaning that without the other 89% of non-renewable energy we couldn't do ANY renewables. We wouldn't have any reasonable society if our power consumption was cut by 90%. It is fossil fuels that allow us to play with renewables. They provide the foundation and framing for renewables - and renewables require that support to even be just 10% viable. So why not assign nearly the same level of externalities to renewables - since they couldn't even exist without that support?
Slashdot Mirror
The news are in on the lie as well, right?
Ray is right about the drive for impeachment (and wasn't it those very Democrats who were concerned that President Trump wouldn't abide by the election - the exact same thing they seek to do?). It will be a waste of effort (there is nothing illegal or a "high crime" or even misdemeanor suggested - it's just "Orange Man Bad"), and if they can get enough together to pass articles of impeachment - it will go NO WHERE in the Senate.
And your trolling must include the BBC and Reuters. I guess it's a world-wide conspiracyto build a lie that South Africa will expropriate land without compensation? Either that or the SJW snowflake of an AC is hurt that the facts don't support their delicate world-view...
It's still at one Dogecoin is worth one Dogecoin! Inflation AND crash-proof!
Around here (Ventura area, near the beach), solar doesn't add any ROI to the resale. Most people don't have AC systems, let alone solar because it doesn't pay off. Put a $10K solar system on your house, you'll be lucky to get half that as value. And probably less, as most roofs are tiled, and in an earthquake bolts through tiles are the first things to cause roofing failures (which is why pretty much everything up near the top of a house, like a satellite dish, is installed on the eaves or sides of the home, into wood - not roofing tiles).
Yes - and? Somehow the GP thought that Alaska wouldn't spend half the year in darkness, when in fact every place does.
Imagine the unholy slaughter if you were making wooden benches for a beer hall and eating a piece of toast! Damn near nuclear-level, extinction event!
Don't worry - that initial $10K estimate from the State is rock-solid! After all, we were told the $100 billion, 100 MPH high speed train from Bakersfield to Modesto is only going to cost $16 billion and it runs from LA to San Francisco in just 2 hours!
Those start shipping right after the $35K Model 3, right?
To comply with this change, TFA says it would cost about $10k, on homes that cost on average $550k.
At least in my neighborhood (selling prices around $700K), $10K would be a solid 7-8 years of electricity costs. Add in additional taxation and insurance costs, and it's probably going to be 9 years to break even. Opportunity costs of investment of that $10K make it, at best, a push over a 20-25 year timespan (typical quote for solar panel lifespans).
For a person buying their first home, that $10,000 is an up-front cost, and may preclude them from buying that home, thus never realizing an amortized cost over the next 30 years. Doesn't matter how much you save over 30 years, if your up-front costs are too high to purchase in the first place.
Yes, yes they did. Interestingly, it is now explicitly legal to discriminate on boards of directors against transsexual and intersex folks, because the law only states that women must be included. Since there is now a defined list of who must be on a board - men and women - it implicitly means you do NOT have to have anyone else, so feel free to discriminate as you like!
Name one california regulation or government over reach? Name one? Waiting?
Prop 65 warnings. Seriously, toast and prune juice are on the Prop 65 list as "dangerous items" for human consumption. If that's not a regulatory overreach - prune juice and toast, for crying out loud - then I don't know what is. And if you don't label something with a Prop 65 warning - you open yourself up to massive litigation.
NEWS FLASH: Every place on the planet spends half the year in darkness. It's called "night".
Precisely. I never understood a "nuisance tax" called a fare, when the fare covers a small portion of costs and also serves to restrict use. Make transit free, eat the remaining 10-20% of costs, and see if ridership increases.
I never said we shouldn't pay or subsidize transit; in fact, I was pointing out that it pretty much is, effectively, fully subsidized - everywhere. Charging a small, nominal fare that covers a very small part of the cost is more a nuisance tax than anything. Transit is already effectively paid for by tax dollars, it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch to go full-subsidy.
One interesting thing to note is that Luxembourg is the country with the highest external debt (by percent of GDP and per capita) in the world; I guess it's time to toss more debt dollars on that pile!
With falling market share, and flat unit sales, the only way to increase revenue and keep that stock price climbing is by charging more per unit. So - they do. And they do their best to market that increased price as best they can, to drive the dwindling consumer demand to pay that higher price.
How many transit systems actually operate at a profit? In most of the US, transit systems operate at significant losses, with something like 70-80% of the costs covered by general taxes, not the ticket. And the transit is often-times under-utilized. Moving to a free model may just fill up the transit systems, for not a whole lot more tax dollars.
According to this, Panasonic has put about $5.5 billion in to the factory, and Tesla has put about $0.6 billion into it. So it's about 90% Panasonic's money, and most of their technology, in the Gigafactory.
Worked before, but people are too enthralled having a Federal Government spend over $1100 per month for every man, woman, and child in the US. Uncle Sugar has too many hooked...
Would be interesting to see how it impacted the economy of those areas too, if retail sales took a hit.
Regulate - yes. Ban ownership of? No. China bans ownership. World of difference. Heavy regulation is socialist; outright State ownership is communist.
Turmp has yet to have a filibuster proof Senate. Obama didn't do anything about the economy, he claimed 2% GDP growth was the new normal, and we should just get used to 7% unemployment. Somehow he gets to shuffle everything bad off to Bush - but everything good that Trump does goes to him. I guess that's why the markets exploded literally the day after the election - because Obama?
They cite the tariffs amongst a litany of reasons. Notably GM. Of course, Ford was ahead of the curve, saw the falling US demand for cars (it's skyrocketing for SUVs and trucks) and already cut down its offerings. GM was slow to respond to the market change, and is now fishing about for any reason it can...
Somehow we managed to fund a US Military prior to the Federal Income tax...
We need to assign about 89% of all externalities for fossil fuels to renewables. Why? Renewables are about 11% of our total energy supply, meaning that without the other 89% of non-renewable energy we couldn't do ANY renewables. We wouldn't have any reasonable society if our power consumption was cut by 90%. It is fossil fuels that allow us to play with renewables. They provide the foundation and framing for renewables - and renewables require that support to even be just 10% viable. So why not assign nearly the same level of externalities to renewables - since they couldn't even exist without that support?