Capacity =/= generation. Generation is generally 20% of capacity due to solar's awful capacity factor, which is why its NOT competitive with coal (really, nothing is). I would love for this to be true, because as a tech solar seems like the elegant solution we need-- you make the panel, it magically makes energy, win win! Except thats not the reality. Things like latitude (germany is pretty far north, for example, which affects their generation), the fact that panels dont last forever (need replacement after 15-30 years), their high cost to make, and their low efficiency conspire to kill "the dream". Enough soapboaxing-- lets look at actual figures.

(Sources from wikipedia, and from thence many other sites)
A chart of energy prices by source, Germany. Note how coal is generally 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of solar.

US DOE estimates for 2019 (scroll down for chart). The fun facts--Total system costs (per mWh):
  * Coal (various types): 95 - 147
  * Natural gas (various types): 66 - 128
  * Advanced Nuclear: 96
  * Solar, Thermal: 243
  * Solar, PV: 130

Note the first column, which is where solar really gets thrashed. Your installed solar capacity may be 1000MWh, but your average output over the year will generally be 200MWh because your capacity factor sucks. Go towards the poles, it will be far worse (as Germany is discovering). Take a look here, you can see that while Germany has a boatload of solar capacity (beating out everything else), its actual generation lags behind everything except gas and hydro.

Im not cherry-picking these, either; one of those links youll note appears to be to a "green" site. Im just grabbing the first links I see, which mesh with every other piece of info I've seen on the subject. The TL;DR is that solar is crazy expensive and not really a great pick for northern countries. Maybe Im wrong and Germany will hit 100% of its generation year round eventually-- but I seriously doubt it. Solar is great as long as you dont expect it to carry the full weight of your country's energy needs; its really not made for that.

The real tragedy to me is that Germany is scaling down its nuclear, with the upshot that its still having to rely heavily on coal. If we did live in a world driven by science and rationality, we would see solar / wind / nuclear on an upswing and coal on a downswing. Thats not happening because many "green" types will worry about the nuclear boogeyman, and claim that if we work for 100 years we can possibly get solar to be cost competitive and efficient enough to actually generate a country's energy.

As I recall, Germany's solar infrastructure consistently delivers a fraction of what its expected output is, year after year. Might have something to do with how far north they are.

You have to remember that solar already sits around 20-40% efficiency, chopping another 60% out of that is a pretty serious hit.

I wasnt remarking on your party, but on the deflection. Theres a serious issue here with a presidential hopeful violating all manner of data protection and FOIA laws, and you want to turn this into commentary on the FBI and conservative media.

I personally dont like when people pull all sorts of red herring manuevers, but I hear its quite valuable in the PR sector which is why I recommended you make a profession out of it.

They should hire you to do their spin.

It has historically been the policy of reasonable and just governments to punish people who have committed a crime, after they have committed said crime. Now alternatives have been proposed, most famously by Mr Orwell, but these are generally regarded as a poor choice for the populace.

If the vast majority of the population has no trouble in following a loosely enforced law, and someone cries "for the children!" to attempt to impose strict policing for the entire population for the sake of stopping the remaining 0.05% of offenders, I would have a hard time signing on.

Wonder if this AC will be back to correct his completely incorrect speculation.

One even wonders if all the hysteria here will serve as a live lesson in "reigning it in".

Just to clarify here, the story is that Slashdot posted an incorrect and hysterical headline a few days ago, that has been refuted, and now Slashdot is making another story about it.

Its amazing, even when there's no news, Slashdot can use this technique to report complete BS and then report on the expose of said BS! Endless news cycle!

Yea, I hate how Google stole the draw-down menu, the app drawer, the quick-settings, and the 3-button interface.

Cant they do ANYTHING different, like create a smart watch ecosystem?

Nice try, Richard Stallman, you cant fool us.

Many geeks have been crying "the world is ending" nonstop forever (warranted or not). Theres such a thing as outrage fatigue.

Just to be clear: Is this your opinion, or do any courts share your view on the matter?

Not really. When you go to a store, the seller has no obligation to sell you anything. When you attempt to purchase a good, at that point you are offering an exchange with the vendor; they can lower the price, raise it, give the item away, or even refuse to sell you the item at all (all of which have happened in the real world). Until you and the seller come to terms and exchange currency for the good, you do not have legal posession of it.

Im sure there is a much more accurate legal explanation for this, so I'll let StackExchange do the talking (though I would note they misinterpret Treasury.gov's stance on debt, as they leave out some crucial parts).
http://skeptics.stackexchange....

ITT: Not-lawyers discuss not-law.

Now, Im not a lawyer, either, but I am familiar with Treasury.gov's stance, and with at least 1 court case where the court held that you dont have to accept payment in pennies.

Not only that there are in fact precedents indicating that the courts will have no problem declaring you a jackass for trying to use pennies, and uphold your debt regardless of your shenanigans.

While it is interesting to suppose what it would be like if that were to work, in reality it would not:

In State v. Carroll, 1997 WL 118064 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.), the Court upheld the municipal court's refusal to accept the pennies. The plaintiff argued that under 31 U.S.C.A. ' 5103, United States coins are legal tender "for all debts, public charges taxes and dues," and for that reason the city was required to accept the pennies as payment of the fine. Without pointing to any case law, the Court simply concluded that "It defies logic and common sense that this Congress intended such a wooden and broad application of the statute beyond the control of the payee regardless of the circumstances."
Source