There should also be a rule that if a mod participates in a thread as a member then that mod is precluded from acting as a mod in that thread.
At this point I think all are aware of why you think this.
OM
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There should also be a rule that if a mod participates in a thread as a member then that mod is precluded from acting as a mod in that thread.
Anyone care to make a gentleman’s wager (steak dinner) that all ICE will be banned by 2030? Anything less than a total ban will simply be a transfer of power from the people to the elites.
ICE ban would need to include:
Tanks
Aircraft
Spacecraft
Cargo ships
Semi trucks
Police vehicles
Fire trucks
Busses
Political motorcades.
(Basically any and every fossil fuel based engine)
If we’re just talking about banning only the people’s mode of transportation, this whole thread is academic, circular, intellectual masturbation, and not a rational discussion, as it’s environmental impact would be moot.
My position, like the Y2K reference I made earlier, 2030 will come and go and we will still be using Internal Combustion Engines, and those that advocated for their ban will rationalize or “forget” this conversation even happened.
At the current rate a steak dinner in 2030 may cost $500, so it might be worth paying up early if you think you’re going to loose.
There should also be a rule that if a mod participates in a thread as a member then that mod is precluded from acting as a mod in that thread.
At this point I think all are aware of why you think this.
OM
Anyone care to make a gentleman’s wager (steak dinner) that all ICE will be banned by 2030? Anything less than a total ban will simply be a transfer of power from the people to the elites.
ICE ban would need to include:
Tanks
Aircraft
Spacecraft
Cargo ships
Semi trucks
Police vehicles
Fire trucks
Busses
Political motorcades.
(Basically any and every fossil fuel based engine)
If we’re just talking about banning only the people’s mode of transportation, this whole thread is academic, circular, intellectual masturbation, and not a rational discussion, as it’s environmental impact would be moot.
My position, like the Y2K reference I made earlier, 2030 will come and go and we will still be using Internal Combustion Engines, and those that advocated for their ban will rationalize or “forget” this conversation even happened.
At the current rate a steak dinner in 2030 may cost $500, so it might be worth paying up early if you think you’re going to loose.
I completely agree, 2030 will just come and go and not much will have changed. No politician in their right mind, that wants to remain in office, will ever address the true cause of global warming that being there is just way too many of us creatures on planet earth. Some how I think ma nature will come up with a solution if we as a specie don't. With luck I won't be around.
Well said, Reece, and logical. We can have that steak dinner together, but I won't take your bet.
No "delivery" charge to support the infrastructure/transmission lines in CA?So, sure. Fission for folks that can't generate their own. But for anyone with a roof, make your own and never pay a gas or electric bill again.
But for anyone with a roof, make your own and never pay a gas or electric bill again.
No "delivery" charge to support the infrastructure/transmission lines in CA?
This is kind of dizzying - https://www.pge.com/en_US/residenti...inimum-bill-charges/minimum-bill-charges.page
OM
If only that were true. IMHO you just did what you accused others of doing.
There's still a lot of argument about this. Under Title 24, no grid ties are expressly identified and allowed, but the power companies want to get their money, so they're trying to get NEM 3.0 in place to require a meter. Is it settled? I believe 12/15/22 is when we'll get a decision. To me, PG&E can f off and die. 5000 homes burned to the ground in Santa Rosa. Paradise completely flattened. Other first this year were also precipitated by equipment failure on long distance, high voltage transmission lines. Why are we adhering to this model when we can generate power locally and not have to worry about burning half the state town because of single digit humidity and high winds?
I think the two laws are in conflict with each other. I have a friend with a solar array in Placerville and while he's grid tied, he's still generating more electricity than he's using and his bills are negative numbers. PG&E owes him money and they owe him a little more every month.
I think his total spend to install all his capacity, including enough capacity to heat his pool, run the house and install a new roof, storage and inverter, was right about $30K. He's got enough power on board to run his house for two days on the batteries, even if the sun somehow didn't come up both days. He got federal financing on it, which is super cheap and he got ridiculous credits on his equipment purchases.
He's a few miles outside of town, so instead of driving his F250 down there to buy groceries, he's going to get a cheap used EV and get rid of most of his gasoline expenditures. He's already ditched all his gas powered lawn and yard equipment, with the exception of one of his big chain saws.
Why not? Stop paying for gas.
How so? My neighbors - 25% of the houses on my street - are all making their own juice and not paying PG&E. 3 out of those 4 houses are juicing up their Teslas, Bolt, Hyundai EV, PHEV Rav4 and VW id.4 off their roof.
What am I missing?
Well said, Reece, and logical. We can have that steak dinner together, but I won't take your bet.