I'm fine raising the price of gas to a natural level (no subsidies). Oil companies don't need the welfare anymore. Subsidies in general bug me. Once they are in place they never go away. Modest tariffs to add a little friction at the borders is also a good thing if you ask me, it make it harder for big companies to arbitrage the labor supply.

I'd rather see funding in general come from taxing the top 5-10% more, especially the top 0.1%. Even independent of adding solar panels I would like to see the top income brackets taxed much more, with the funding going to infrastructure and education. I'd also like to see military funding rolled back, which is more practical if we manage to become less dependent on unstable countries for our energy needs.

What was your point again?

So if we had 100,000 workers installing panels, they would only have 7 hours per panel to install it?

Horrors. We might need to get unions involved to keep people from exceeding that rate and put hard working solar installers out of work.

Wrong. Most people forget that there is a time dependence on the supply demand curve, and often an NRE portion. Supply/demand works as you state as a way to describe what will happen in the short term.

If you sell 1,000 cars you have to charge more than if you know you are selling a million of them. The miracle of mass production shows up when you can ammortize the development costs over many units. The more you sell, the more you can spread that cost around and more reasonable spend extra development money to lower the production costs (make a custom battery plant, buy robots to replace workers, etc).

So over time you can get 1990's Ferrari performance for Chevy prices. Many of the major safety and convenience features in a Chevy started out in luxury cars and trickled down as the volumes went up and the prices came down. As volumes go up you find that there si higher integration and a drop in the per unit price, which a textbook beginner supply/demand curve is inadequate to describe.

Who pays for your current power plant when it needs maintenance, repair, or replacement? We have these things called "utility companies" that have the charter to keep the lights on (some do a better job than others). Similarly if utility companies are driven to put in energy storage by laws or incentives, they would pool user fees (you do have an electric bill, right?) and pay for ongoing maintenance and repair of panels and storage systems.

Today we have subsidies, the argument being made is to adjust those to favor solar instead of coal, oil, and natural gas. Utility companies are largely driven by rules to best serve their customers. If subsidies make solar the cheapest option, the change will happen as old power plants wear out and get replaced.

But surely you are not as dumb as your comments appear to be?

So a 14x14 mile square? Put a few of those in the Mojave desert. Put many more out in Eastern Oregon, Texas, New Mexico, etc. We have many large and mostly empty places in the USA.

Let's get that started, and also start funding/subsidizing the heck out of energy storage projects to help get solar to fill in more than just daylight hours.

That has been proposed for a while. However, it takes huge amounts of energy to get that many panels into orbit, and space is still a very harsh place do construction work.

Geosynchronous would allow satellites to hover over their receiving stations, but the distances are quite large, making it very hard to make a narrow enough beam to power a city a couple hundred miles away without also cooking it.

Low earth orbit is better, but now your giant death ray is moving, and must track one of many receiving stations as it orbits. No easy task either.

Ground based solar is vastly more serviceable, but needs an upgraded power grid to push around power from where we have it to where we need it. Storage is still needed if we want to go beyond the ~20% point, but generally solar can fill in the peak usages caused by summertime AC use. There still is a lot of low hanging fruit for solar to help with, and the limitations of storage shouldn't be used to distract from us from using solar up to that point.

He's a loonie, and so far the only candidate I actually want to vote for.

I don't think that is a statement on how good of a candidate he is, but rather just how awful the other choices are.

As long as their panels aren't crap and can be bought at a competitive price, I see no issue.

BMW used to make engines for Nazi planes (Godwin!), but that should have no bearing on your decision when buying a car that fits your criteria. Companies in reviled industries who branch out should be applauded, not blackballed.

The point is that half the die area (plus the extra DRAM module) cost you major $$$ even if all you wanted was a top end 4 core processor. For quite a while now Intel has been working on the graphics and power consumption, which is great for mobile and low-end, but the higher end desktop folks are getting frustrated that performance is dead flat, if not dropping.

Anyone paying $300-540 for a processor is not likely to cheap out and ONLY use the integrated graphics. These i5 and i7 processors are turning into a pretty big disappointment. You can get far better graphics with just about the lowliest available sub $100 graphics card, but the options ditch the graphics and get a couple more cores explode in price.

And Agilent has since split into two with Life Sciences taking the name, and the test and measurement relic being named Keysight (sounds like a rental company...).

Bill and Dave would be ashamed of where their creation has gone.

Thin hair and light skin. My head burns easily and I just wear mine out of habit a lot so that I am rarely without it. I often take it off indoors, but I always show up to work with one, and have an additional sun hat for when I go outside at lunch for a walk. Hats are useful as more than a fashion statement.

Hipsters wearing knit winter hats in the middle of the blazing summer are just dumb however.

I often do a lot of CAD work, usually a bunch of squiggly crap on a black background. Overhead fluorescent lights in my field of view really bug me when I am in in the midst of that type of work. I often wear a baseball cap to block the light that is right above the corner of my cube. I also often come in on weekends where I can turn off the overhead lights in my area and also have very few distractions when I really need to be immersed.

I expect someday we may have truly autonomous cars, but everyone is acting like it will be in the next 5 years. Maybe 30-50 years out I will believe it, but a lot of the wild claims of "sooner than you think" are a bunch of hot air.

So one car racking up double the total miles you would have put on two cars? So double the gas usage and tire wear to boot. And you get to replace that one car twice as often.

Why will insurance become too expensive? If mixing in autonomous cars doesn't make the road more dangerous rates should stay the same or even drop for non-autonomous cars, not go up. Insurance is about aggregating average risk and taking a bit of profit, not some grand morality play.