I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that public utilities should be funded from taxes instead of charging for service? I don’t think having tax payers pay public utilities to overproduce electricity is going to fix the problem, especially since no amount of tax dollar funding can allow utilities to produce solar electricity when the sun isn’t shining.

Public utilities still need to cover their expenses, and they’re not going to be able to do that if they’re charging negative rates in the middle of the day and have no electricity to sell once the sun goes down.

Isn’t peak consumption around middle of the day for most countries?

I can’t speak to other countries, but in the US peak electricity demand generally occurs in the early evening.

Mfw electricity being cheap to generate is not economical

Cheap electricity is great for consumers, but not necessarily for producers. Some people might say, “well, screw producers,” but even if you take profit out of the equation, electric utilities need to be able to at least cover their expenses, and you can’t do that if the amount of electricity you’re generating relative to the demand is so high the price actually goes negative (meaning the utility is actually paying the consumer). Again, that’s good for consumers, but I’m sure you can see how that’s not a sustainable business model. And, like I mentioned before, it would be one thing if utilities could make up for this by selling for a higher price during peak, but by that point the sun is either setting or already set, depending on the time of year, so there’s just no solar electricity to sell, at any price.

That’s not what they were saying, they were saying that it’s not economical to have an abundance of electricity when people need it the least, and little or no electricity when people need it the most. It would be one thing if utilities could sell solar electricity at peak demand hours for a higher price, to make up the difference, but that’s just when solar generation is slowly down significantly or stopped entirely.

And, yes, I know that battery storage could theoretically solve this, but battery technology is not currently capable of providing electricity for the entirety of the time we need it. New technologies are being developed right now with the goal of achieving long term grid storage, but they are still in the R&D phase. I’m confident a suitable storage technology, or multiple technologies, will eventually come to market, but it’s going to take a while.

Regardless, it is likely we will always need some kind of on-demand power generation to supplement renewables and maintain grid stability, and I think nuclear is the best option.

But we shouldn’t act like the problem is that utilities are just greedy. Many utilities aren’t even for-profit companies, as many are either not-for-profit cooperatives or public entities. Sure, there are also many for-profit power utilities as well, maybe even some with connections to the fossil fuel industry, but generally power utilities are not some great villain.

Sounds like the moms are to blame. Moms need to be less forgiving of their sons, to better prepare them for their future relationships.

I used to advocate for Linux, because I wanted more people to use it, so that more software devs would support it. I care a lot less about that since proton came to prominence. Linux still doesn’t get all the support from devs that I want, but there’s so much great software available now, both open source and proprietary, that I don’t really worry about non Linux users anymore.

So use whatever OS you want, folks. I don’t really care.

Sorry, you’re all getting techno-feudalism.

I know a Gen Zer who’s hoping her Gen X parents will leave her their house and their 20+ acres of land, but it ain’t gonna happen. When they reach retirement age they’re going to sell it all and that’s going to be their retirement. Retirement is expensive, and the longer you live the more expensive it is, especially if you get sick, and you will get sick, eventually.

One reason the suburbs even exist is that there isn’t space in the city for everyone. Many suburban families would rather live downtown but cannot as they do not have the mega millions to own a 3br condo.

But I think the reason there isn’t space for everyone in many cities is because a large percentage, or even a majority of the land in many cities is zoned for single family only, even very near downtown areas. I think parking requirements have a lot to do with it as well, since they result in parking lots being built where condos, or other multifamily housing could be built. Theoretically if you get rid of single family only zoning and the parking requirements, more housing units could be built, even larger units, increasing their supply relative to the demand, thus bringing down the per unit price.

But maybe that theory is flawed. Maybe the problem goes deeper than zoning and parking requirements. A lot of these real estate developments are investments, and investors have an incentive to not build so much housing that the per unit price goes down significantly. Some people might argue that developers and investors could make up for lower per unit prices in volume, but that’s only true if they are large enough and have capital resources to produce at that higher volume, which might be fine for very large developers and investment companies, but not for smaller ones. Plus, large or small, why try to make money selling or renting more units at a lower per unit price when you can make the same amount of money selling or renting fewer units at a higher per unit price?

I think the thing that would help the most would be to get rid of single family only zoning. That should result in a lot more, higher density housing being built. However, that’s not going to bring down the price of single family homes. In fact, it would probably make them more expensive. Maybe not everyone would think that’s such a good thing, but it’s absolutely necessary if we want to reduce car dependency.

According to Climate Action Tracker, the world is projected to warm between 2.5C and 2.9C, by 2100, based on current pledges and policies.

According to this New York Times article, mass death of coral reefs is projected to occur at between 1C and 2C of warming, abrupt warming of permafrost is projected to occur at between around 1C and 2.25C of warming, collapse of Greenland ice is projected to occur between 1C and 3C, breakup of West Antarctic ice at between 1C and 3C, sudden shift in the West African monsoon at between about 2C and 3.5C, loss of Amazon rainforest between about 2C and 6C, and shutdown of Atlantic currents at between about 1.5C and 8C.

The global average temperature has increased 1.17C above the long-term average from 1951 to 1980. That means we are already within the range at which mass death of coral reefs, abrupt warming of permafrost, collapse of Greenland ice, and the breakup of West Antarctic ice could occur.

A lot of economists don’t listen to anything Joseph Stiglitz says, because he’s not from the Chicago school. Economics is so stupid.

If a laptop is left unattended long enough to do a fresh Arch install, it’s probably been abandoned anyway.

People will reflexively reject new and different possibilities when advocates are too radical or aggressive in their approach. That’s why it’s important that we try to win people over using reason and logic, rather than protests. The fact is, cars are an expensive and inefficient means of transporting people and things. That doesn’t mean cars don’t have their use cases. They certainly do, and that’s why I don’t think cars and small trucks will or should go away completely, but in an ideal (ie maximally cost effective and efficient) scenario, cars would represent a relatively small percentage of total conveyance methods.

I’d say it’s more than half the problem. It’s just too expensive, too inefficient, and just not sustainable. It must go, and once it does, suburban sprawl will go with it. Once that goes, higher density housing and mixed use development will become the norm, and when that happens, owning a car will become not only unnecessary but impractical, for many.

Suburban sprawl makes owning a car a necessity. If we’re going to significantly reduce the amount of driving Americans do, I think most people are going to have to give up on the American dream. Most people are just not going to be able to own their own, detached single family home in the suburbs.

Not uncommon at all. My cousin had a giant fifth wheel, and he would often pull his four wheelers behind it.

Your Subi wouldn’t be able to pull some of these American travel trailers. Many of them are absolutely massive, they’re like a luxury condo on wheels.

We have no sense of reasonable proportion here in the US. Everything must be unnecessarily large and unwieldy, gaudy and exorbitant. Bigger is always better here in the good 'ol US of A.

A lot of people who buy trucks these days just need something that can tow a travel trailer or a boat to their favorite camp site a few times a year. It’s not that they need a truck on a day to day basis, but they might need the towing capability on occasion. That’s why these trucks are a weird combination of luxury sedan (with their leather seats and high end interiors) and pickup truck. Most of the time they use it like a regular car, but sometimes they might need the towing capability.

Maduro’s government has cracked down on the opposition despite promises to pave the way to fair elections in exchange for relief from economic sanctions imposed by the United States last decade as democratic and human rights conditions deteriorated in Venezuela. The recent moves prompted the Biden administration to re-impose crushing oil sanctions last month.

Is there any evidence that sanctions like these actually achieve their stated goals? In this case, they certainly don’t seem to have worked. So, why double down?