Okay, I'm going to have to critique the article a bit. Please note that I live in Alaska and almost purchased solar panels myself - it's just that the distributor I looked at purchasing the panels from made break-even assumptions that not even I could swallow. It definitely doesn't make sense to pay somebody to install them up here.

Anyways - very first paragraph, 'ensure utility companies pay for unused power that is routed back into the power grid - a practice known as net metering'. To my knowledge ALL power companies are willing to pay for the power returned to the grid. However, they often want to pay utility rates for it, not retail. To put it another way, let's say you're a biodiesel producer in your spare time, and every so often you have some surplus. Do you expect the local biodiesel station to purchase your fuel* for the pump price? Or are they going to want to pay the price they get it from their distributor for?

Now, the actual situation is quite a bit more complicated- electricity isn't really stored, and the marginal cost per watt during peak times can be quite a bit higher than what you're charged as a home customer, without time cost considerations. Electricity costs tend to be a bit higher during the day, so the argument has been that panels tend to displace expensive power, not cheap power. But as market penetration increases, it can change the paradigm that utilities operate under, and unlike most industries, if it's doing it's job the power company IS looking 40 years ahead.

The argument is that grid-tie solar users are often close to even production, and due to net metering aren't paying the maintenance costs of the wire they're using, while still not being a significant contributor to the grid. They effectively use the grid as a giant battery.

So, while the answer for any given solar install is 'complex', on average net metering is a subsidy. Whether it's a worthy subsidy, that's up to individuals to decide.

The problem with rooftop solar being 'on par with prices for common fossil-fuel power generation in just two years' is that we may face a situation where power becomes MORE EXPENSIVE during the night(and late evenings when people are still up). Again, are we talking about utility, IE right at the plant, or retail, after it's traveled through potentially hundreds of miles of power line? Because the former is around $.02/kwh, the latter more like $.08. Browsing the citing document, not only are they using retail, but they're not predicting the price drop he predicts. They're predicting it'll drop below standard retail prices. Which includes grid maintenance.

Disconnecting from the grid is possible(in most areas), but it substantially increases costs to the solar installer to put in a battery bank and often even a generator. Operating the generator is obviously, much more expensive than buying power from the electric company.

So... Like how a regular business operates? I know, lose a little on each sale, but we'll make it up on volume!

Anyways, I support more solar power, but we have to realize that we'd see some drastic changes if it ever exceeds 20% of electricity generation here in the States. It's not anywhere near that yet, but like I said, the power companies are looking ahead. Heck, we might face a future where daytime power is much 'cheaper' than night time, and there's a big push for people to charge their vehicles at work. Of course, that means all those home panels will be producing electricity that has to transition the grid... Please note that I'm looking 10-20+ years into the future here.

As a bigger fan of electric vehicles, I can't help but imagine a system where 'retired' EV batteries are used to make homes, if not entirely self-sufficient, at least only really dependent upon a 'neighborhood grid'.

*Let's say you're good at it and it's identical to their normal product.

Normally the pain of being shot or otherwise injured negates that.

How about we go with the generally accepted option:
1. War sucked, the climate mostly sucked, the area sucked for US personnel, etc... Especially during Korea/Vietnam
2. Unlike WWII, heroin was readily, easily available.
3. Ergo, soldiers used often.

Dry them out from their chemical dependency and ship them home, where heroin is harder to get and life doesn't suck so much, and they don't feel the need to go back. Resulting in expected failure rates of 80% for ceasing use dropping down to over 80% staying off it for at least the period of the multi-year study.

Another I've heard about is going vertical with the transistors. You still have increased worries about heat, but you can get a lot more density that way. Shorter average wire runs also result in less heat per transistor, on average, so increased density and efficiency might outweigh any need to throttle to manage heat.

No link, but I heard on NPR that back during the Korean/Vietnam war absolutely embarrassing numbers of troops were addicted to heroin.

The military tried an experiment- they dried them out and had them ride out the physical addiction over there in special centers BEFORE shipping them back to the states.

Their success, measured by how many soldiers(and ex-soldiers) fell back into addiction, was all out of line of the thinking of the time.

They came to the conclusion that a large part of the addiction must have been environmental - the sharp change between the war zone and the USA resulted in the vast majority of them NOT seeking out heroin.

Which is why many treatment centers talk about changing the environment to beat addiction.

By the way, I think the study isn't all that great - it only looks at the chance of death, not other possible long and short term negative effects from consumption. It's relatively easy to kill yourself by overdosing on Heroin, but from what I've read, if you can successfully ride that line(not difficult for a doctor), you can take it pretty much for life without other negative effects. You're addicted, but in about the same way a diabetic is addicted to insulin.

Hopefully more of the anti-drug warriors will start actually listening to this stuff.

Heroin isn't all that bad as long as it's medical quality and administered professionally.

Not my experience. I put Apocalyptica in there and every other song was them(for that station). I ended up unclicking that station from my shuffle because I got sick of them. I mean, with 9 stations I don't need to be hearing them every 5th song.

I'm going for a CS degree right now, and it's very much STEM. Matter of fact, I'll graduate with an 'automatic' math minor with my degree program. Though I'm 'sneaking' out of taking chemistry because I have biology credits. No sneaking out of physics though.

No, I don't anticipate doing 'real science' in the course of my day to day life after graduation.

Personally, I'm chalking his statement up to some ignorance, which everybody has. Hopefully he'll become more educated from this.

Excellent. Your property has caused injury to me and many others, now that the owner has been identified you can expect a class action lawsuit.

The problem would be that they'd simply change their patent holdings to shell companies. Each shell company would hold about 4 patents.

Technology varies, but yeah, generally it's high voltage AC or DC that goes to the car.

That being said, because kV range voltage is 'interesting' whether AC or DC, there's some serious communication going on between the charger and the car before any real voltage starts transiting the charging cable.

Indeed, all this amounts to is a number of estimates on how much it'd cost to get ~ 160kW into a house, which would ultimately be decided by serious engineering work if/when it occurred. That's where they'd decide on the basis of all variables on what voltage at what amps to bring in, cabling, conduit vs buried cable, etc...

Personally, I think 800A@240 V is more likely, but other options include 3 phase, 600V, etc...

But if the transformer is close enough, sure, run a line from there.

You're 'mostly' right'. You can have an 800 amp 240V service, I even found a box for it here. It's 'only' 4 modern home's worth.

You'd end up running 3 sets of cable, from doing some internet searching. IE rather than the usual 2 wires, you'd be running SIX.

The trouble with running 2.5kV is that it'd 'probably' be even more expensive as the power company would have to run you a line from the 'nearest' 2.5kV transformer, plus, do they really want to be running that voltage through a residential zone? It'd have to be insulated.

As such, the cost would be so wildly variable that I can't even start to come up with a guess. You're probably looking at a hundred to two hundred a foot for the service run. Is that 100 feet or a mile?

Indeed, you want to see an area relatively devoid of charging stations?

Plug where I live in there - Fairbanks, AK. We have a total of ONE station. At the Nissan dealership.

As an oddity, we effectively have cripple charge capabilities all over the place, but that's because we live far enough north that gasoline vehicles need to be plugged in. Might only be 1500 watts, but it's still something.

I didn't say that they aren't. As an American, I'm well aware of how cities can grow and envelope others, while retaining at least their technical authority. But peering in from the outside, just like I do with Denver, Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, and various other cities, your city gets stuck into 'Tokyo' from an outsider's perspective.

To continue, it may be something of a translation issue. You're assigning '-ku' as 'city', where I might translate it as 'county, ward, precinct, or district'.

The fact remains that with about 11 km of driving you can reach many charging points. Whether those are technically within the bounds of Shinjuku is ultimately fairly useless. That leads to a question. For such a densely populated city occupying what's apparently a postage stamp's worth of land, how many gas stations are there?

Matter of fact, clicking on links around, I see at least 12 stations that identify themselves as Shinjuku.

To some extent, all military subs have always been 'stealth'. That they need to make them stealthier is also nothing new.

Most people would have to haul that gasoline can in 4-5 times to avoid ONE fillup at the gas station. I have enough cans to fill my truck up(1 gal oil mix for chainsaw, 2 gallon for the mower, and 2 5 gallon cans, if you repurpose the kerosene one for gasoline), sort of.

Given that I know there's a number in town, I'd only count it as a 'gas station' if it has a large enough tank to realistically have fuel delivered by truck, with a dedicated pump & hose. IE starting at about 250 gallons, with most in the 500-1k range.

Because with a home charging station, you NEVER need to 'haul' electricity home.