You double counted efficiency. 10W/ft2 is approx. the output of a 12% solar panel so your figure is off by a factor of at least 8. But calculating things from hr/day is error prone, annualized, monthly, or daily radiation data is much better.

Also 12% is a dated figure, the best price point for panels today is around 16-18%, after system losses this yields AC output of ~14.5%. But modules comprise such a small portion of system costs these days (typically about 20%), that we should really all be going for 21-24% modules on rooftops because -25% installer times are likely going allow lower total system costs. Those modules (eg sunpower, panasonic) give about ~18% AC.

Let's try that again. Germany = 1000 - 1400 kWh/m2-yr (go with 1200)
Peak AC output on a system of 17% modules is conservatively .145*1200 = 174 kWh/m2
3600kWh/174 = 21m2 (225ft2), which is around 15 panels or ~3-3.5 kW system (on the small side) and consistent with practice.

Solar thermal is also very popular in Germany. Solar thermal is 2-4x more efficient for "heating" than PV, and passive solar is 3-6x more efficient than PV, so most of the heating premium (plus hot water) can be decreased and outright eliminated. Using solar thermal to void the heating premium and provide the standard 60-75% of hot water energy makes it very reasonable to leverage south oriented large roofs (7-12kW systems) to provide much extra solar for the 2-5x residences that cannot squeeze 11-15 panels on their roof. Also wind will contribute as least as much than solar to the overall energy budget.

modules are very cheap (cheap enough and getting cheaper, but this is now a minor variable in PV system costs). it costs 3x their price to install them on a roof.

module quotes in china right now are on the order of 0.46 EUR/W or 0.58 USD/W, total eqpt costs are under 1 USD/W, install costs 1.20 to 1.60 at utility scale and 1.80 to 2.50 on residential roofs.

We need robot installers and a large competitive market to reduce customer aqusition costs

zero tolerance does that.

What is the problem with that? If the costs of regulation via tax give me the internet speed and price I have observed in other countries, what is not to like?

put away your crystal ball for another 18 months please.

Obamacare was single payer. AHA was a compromise to republicans, what did I miss?

What has Comcast innovated with respect to the internet? It's actually rather remarkable the internet has evolved in spite of our grotesque environment. I was one of the first customers on cable broadband in my area (under Time Warner, now Comcast, before one of their infamous territory swaps to trade for monopoly markets) in 1998. I paid $46/mo. I now pay $40 instead of $46 because I own my modem. I have the lowest tier of service, which is 1mb slower down than my 1998 service.

Since that time the cable companies have come up with such innovations as requiring me to have basic cable to get internet at the regular price, banning modems that remain compliant, decreasing the cost effectiveness of my service, provide additional congestion during peak times, and eliminate or charge extra for services that were previously free (allbeit useless). Yep, that is what Comcast innovated in the last half of my life.

In that time I lived in out state for one year and had access to two cable companies, presumably enabling the competition that brought me faster internet for $10 less. In that time I lived in Germany, where I got 50mb/50mb for a hair under $30/mo.

I'd really like to know the innovation Comcast has brought to the table. Perhaps you can counter my experience with your own. Actually what the heck does innovation really mean in this context? How do utilities innovate at all? Why should a utility innovate at all? What do private waste management companies "innovate" that my muni garbage monopoly does not? What are some recent water/sewer/electrical/gas utility"innovations"?? IMO, this is just some bullshit buzzword that means nothing, but signals the correct political team one should join for the sake of lazy argumentation.

just poop into a calorimeter.

looks like ivee costs $199.99 to me.

capitalism isn't most of those things. its simply about privately own capital and production seeking profits. that's it. the false ideals you attribute it are the reason why ignorant people love "capitalism."

spoken by someone who clearly has no expertise in the field, aka slashdot where fucktards extend one irrelevant technical competency to all fields of science and engineering.

also, it's not "like" your poor analogy either.

Because it happens in the house based on the Census.................... Republicans controlled redistricting in 17 states controlling 173 Congressional districts, while Democrats controlled redistricting in just 6 states with 44 Congressional districts (four states with 21 Congressional districts featured split control of the process). Independent or politician-led commissions, state and federal courts, drew the maps for 15 states, and another 7 have no Congressional redistricting process because they only have one at-large seat.

Where did I imply that you or any other suburbanite is missing anything?

Civil services cost money. Maintenance costs money. 40 - 70% of municipal budgets and hence municipal fees and taxes depend strongly on population density (think water, sewer, roads). This is compounded often by terrible city planning choices, which occur more frequently in the suburbs due to less expertise and oversight. It is also compounded by harebrained state and federal assistance to shiny public works projects that muni budgets are ill equipped to maintain.

Continued growth, increases in local taxes, the slow and dereliction of basic maintenance, and disproportionate levels of assistance from state and federal governments are all important factors in this relationship that accentuate or mask the problem. All else equal municipal budgets correlated to population density must be spread across 4 - 12, sometimes 15-20 times less people. It will reach steady state by adding people or taxes. Are you going to pay 400% higher taxes for the suburb? What about 1200% ?,One acre lots = 6000%. Probably not, you will just accept the wave of multi-family developments that are presently sweeping out from the cities precisely because suburbs will otherwise die.

20% park land in 200 parks doesn't hurt. Not needing a car for 95% of travel is also wonderful. While suburbians commute into the city, I read 50 books a year. While suburbians enjoy their 1 acre lots, I enjoy my 0.07 acre and I am in walking distance to a thousand acres of city parkland, a national park stretching thousands of miles along the river, or one of several national wild life refuges, public lakes and creeks. While suburbians buy houses for 250K I spend less than half. I have closer and cheaper access to more shopping more eating more culture. I am closer to the airport. I am closer to several major hospitals. I am closer to major entertainment venues. I am the same distance to state and federal parks. My property taxes are 50% lower. The air and water quality is exactly the same. Crime is the same. The schools are the same, on average.

short answer: yes

No belief necessary. There is data. Suburbs do not have the population density to support modern infrastructure without growth. You might think of it as a Ponzi scheme.