No, TEPCO didn't think it was necessary.

Correction: I meant "#5 through infinity" -- apparently, I've been doing too much programming and I'm now applying zero-based indexing to real life...

Do you know what an MVNO is? Carriers #4 through infinity all piggyback on one (or more) of the big four networks; they are available wherever the corresponding big four network is available.

For example, Page Plus Cellular uses Verizon's network, PureTalk USA uses AT&T's network, Ting uses Sprint's network (and according to the page I linked, apparently also T-Mobile's), and Straight Talk runs on all four (but not necessarily using the same phone).

But since this is Japan, the author speculates that the antipodal point is somewhere in Uruguay, which it is not (it's kinda close though).

Ironically, "Uruguay syndrome" is a more accurate term because Uruguay is a heck of a lot closer to being an antipode of Japan than China is to being an antipode of the US.

Most of the carriers here don't offer a discount if you own your phone outright, because it's a way to lock you in for another 2-3 years.

That's true only if by "most" you mean "only the three largest, whose business model is 'fuck over the customers as much and as often as possible,' as opposed to the dozens of MVNOs (and T-Mobile) that are better in every conceivable way."

Do you have hills? We don't try to dig out basement on flat lots; we dig basements into the side of a hill (such that at least one side is a walk-out).

Lets take your typical home of 2,000 sq/ft that uses a more modest amount of power, say 1/3 of what I use.

Their average monthly bill is about $100 a month and it'll cost about $30,000 worth of solar panels and batteries to remove it.

I live in a home very close to average (a little smaller in square footage, with insulation that met code about 20 years ago)

I've averaged 740 KWh per month of electricity over the last 12 months, and my average power bill was $105.79. This calculator suggests that I'd need about 5500 watts of capacity to replace 100% of my usage, which would cost less than $10,000 for most of the choices on that page (plus installation). Even if installation doubled the price to $20K, your estimate is still 50% too high.

And that, by the way, is ignoring (a) tax credits (and Georgia's state tax credit is quite good), (b) the fact that I'd insulate some more before buying a solar system, reducing the capacity needed further, (c) the fact that I'd probably DIY most of it, and (d) the fact that electricity prices keep going up over time. Considering those factors, I'd probably spend $7000 or less and break even within 6 years.

In fact, pretty much the only reason I don't already have a solar system is that my roof will need to be replaced relatively soon, and I don't want to have to remove and reinstall the panels when that happens. Actually, looking this stuff up now makes me want to go ahead and replace the roof this year, rather than continuing to wait...

Hmm... I don't get it then. Here in Georgia we're famous for our impenetrable red clay, but somehow we manage to dig basements (at reasonable cost) anyway.

Maybe y'all just suck. ; )

So I guess if you put out a carbon tax high enough to triple my power bill, I'd take some small measures to change, but you'd crush the average american's budget in the process.

Bull. The "average American" uses way less carbon than you do. The median home size in the US (note: not the median new home size; the medium size of all homes that currently exist, including old ones) is certainly less than 2000 sq. ft., and (counting apartments) is probably closer to 1500. Tripling the average American's power bill would raise it from $100 to $300, not make it skyrocket from $300 to $900 like yours would.

Which is why we aren't going to get a carbon tax and if we do, it will be too small to actually effect change.

No, we aren't going to get a carbon tax because there are too many people with your kind of wasteful attitude in office.

Your ideas and suggestions are great examples of someone who is coming up with solutions to problems without having to pay for them.

Can we do all these things? Yes, it is technically possible using the technology we have to do all that you are suggesting. I have no doubt about that. But it just isn't going to happen.

Between the cost of solar panels, the cost of the battery, the cost of insulation, new windows, etc. I could easily spend over $100,000 to "solve" this problem you think I have. All to remove a $300 a month electric bill.

That is just nuts and silly. It is a poor use of capital. That money would be much better spent building nuclear power plants and just running the systems we have.

Here's the problem: your entire outlook is based on the presumption that everybody's house is as ridiculously wasteful as yours. This is not the case. You are an outlier. And just because you can't manage a transition to solar, that doesn't mean it isn't a good solution for just about everybody else. You dun goofed; sucks to be you.

Now, quit trying to screw it up for everybody else with your naysaying!

The upper windows in the great room don't open

Of course they don't, because that would make too much damn sense!

(I figured as much; I just wanted to see you admit it for pure schadenfreude. I bet your air handler and ductwork is in your attic, too. Like I said, pathologically bad...)

When the temp is in the 80's, it is starting to get humid. One of the benefits of running the AC isn't just the reduction in temp of the air, it is the humidification of the air. 82 degrees and 10% humidity is not the same as 82 degrees and 35% humidity in terms of "feel".

Setting up stack-effect cooling with a dehumidifier on the cool-air input end would still be much more efficient than AC.

But that just points out a problem, what is the solution? Telling me to move doesn't solve anything, someone else would just move here. Rebuilding or redesigning the house is too expensive, and we aren't going to tear down half of the houses in the country.

The reality is that we have what we have in terms of homes, that isn't going to change within our lifetime. So now we have to figure out how to provide the power required to run these houses.

Many houses are not as pathologically bad as yours. In fact, horrible McMansions have only been built for the last 20 years or so; houses built earlier (ranches and split-levels) are less horrible, and houses built before 1950 or so (craftsman bungalows and Victorians) are actually pretty decent. They had to be, since AC didn't exist yet!

For example, my house in Atlanta is a single-story home built in 1948 (in a transitional post-WWII style halfway between a bungalow and a ranch) and I plan on keeping my HVAC system completely turned off between now and about halfway through June. The technique is to open the windows whenever the temperature is between 60 and 80 (or 65 and 75 for a pickier person), close them otherwise, and rely on the insulation and thermal mass to to maintain the temperature gradient between open-window, er, "windows." If I had a whole-house fan and deep overhangs / awnings, I'd be able to do better.

We also don't have to keep building houses stupidly; if we switch to energy-efficient designs now, energy pigs like your house will be a diminishing fraction of the total housing stock.

I vote for nuclear, it is the only replacement for coal and natural gas that can provide base load for billions of people. The waste can be contained if we can get over our political issues, the waste from coal and natural gas cannot be contained, it goes into the air.

This isn't a "vote!" There's no such thing as picking some kind of silver-bullet absolute winner and ignoring everything else; the choices are not mutually exclusive. The correct solution is to use whatever technology is most appropriate for a given situation. Solar and nuclear (etc.) can coexist perfectly well.

Unlike the GP (who appears to live in some kind of horrible McMansion), your 100+ year old house was designed. In fact, it's perfectly livable without air conditioning at all, proven by the fact that people actually lived in it for decades before air conditioning existed! You just need to go re-learn how to operate it properly.

I live in Georgia; I'm well aware of the fact that desert architecture doesn't work in hot-humid climates like (eastern) Texas.

However, the fact that your house was built stupidly doesn't mean that we should throw up our hands and ignore the problem. There are new houses being built every day, and those should be designed smarter (and in the our case I don't mean with qanats; I mean things like verandas, lots of attic ventilation, and choosing not to cut down the surrounding trees). In the South you may not actually be able to eliminate AC entirely, but you can get pretty close.

By the way: clay soil is not why houses in your area don't have basements. I'm guessing you're on the coastal plain, with a high water table and without hills, and that's why. In the Piedmont, where I live, we have clay soil and basements.

The total efficiency (70%-87%) is quite good, which means that this is not just a good idea but can pay for itself anywhere the difference between peak and off-peak energy costs are larger than the ~20% that is lost to pump friction.

...and where you have the right geographic features to install a dam. As I understand it, most places in the US that are suitable for dams already have one, but we'd need a lot more to compensate for widespread solar. That doesn't make pumped storage a bad idea, it just means it isn't a complete solution.