This is likely one of three options, the other two being entrepreneurialism and capitalism. An ideal solution mixes all three and provides diverse sources of income. With countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines you need to be a little vigilant about the possibility of needing to walk away, especially when you don't have dual citizenship.

Between automation, outsourcing, and government behavior in general, there is no fool-proof solution unless you can buy your own country. You hedge your risks by understanding finance without working in the field, saving money, investing wisely, avoiding debt, and recognizing and taking advantage of opportunities when they arise.

If you aren't willing to do those things, find a business under 50 people that is well run and work for them.

(In IT, the key is actually being responsive (and good). I interviewed four consulting companies, and while they were happy to do an initial (and sometimes follow-up) meeting, all four of them failed to actually provide me with a proposal. #5 is next week... I am even willing to convert our servers to Windows to expand the talent pool; it seems hopeless to find anybody good with Linux in Los Angeles.)

Cash has limited scope. I need to carry about $500 with me for cash incidentals most of the time, despite 75% of my spending being via credit card. I used to be fine with 90% cash and under $200 on my person, but that was a decade ago.

The only thing I can do to manage risk is placing things in corporations.

In terms of the metrics, NYC is penalized for the following: temperature extremes, humidity extremes, tall buildings (plumbing, elevators, etc), and a number of other lesser factors.

NYC is benefitted by the fact that they don't grow anything, or really manufacture much.

NYC should strive to do better. Buildings should be better insulated, HVAC systems should be more efficient, heat recovery should be more widely used, lighting needs to be upgraded with more efficient solutions, and the subway should really try to improve efficiency.

But all these best and worst rankings are bunk without proper context.

Well, looks like this will be the election for a viable third party candidate. No dynasties, no Carly, no wingnuts. Please...

What did I do?! I know the answer... Or at least an answer.

It doesn't take this to be off grid; the benefit of the grid is to more transparently accommodate peak loads, and due to the fact that your PV system has to be substantially oversized to generate adequate power on an overcast winter day, relative to cool summer day usage. Being on the grid lets you put that power to use.

Same thing happens with wind.

The long term benefit is stretching the period over which solar power is used; this will reduce the impact of peak pricing. I like the idea; I was actually going to build a 10kWh flooded lead acid system to do the same thing. Effectively you move the cost of peaking directly to the consumer.

The potential down side is you end up with more widespread Critical Peak Pricing schemes, which jack up the cost of electricity on hot summer days to punative rates.

This would be a great solution for a local energy co-op to run low voltage wiring between homes and businesses all trying to be net producers of electricity, but I am not sold on how it works with the current utility grid model.

Assuming you get 2,000 cycles out of the battery, at $350/kWh(B) it is $0.175/kWh shifted. Further assuming 80% round-trip efficiency you are at about $0.22/kWh that needs to be saved to pay for the system. Add in a 5% cost of capital and you need your off-peak energy to be $0.25 less than peak period.

Stated another way, 2,000 cycles is 5.5 years. If you combine a 4kW PV system (roughly $16k) with this, you have an annualized cost of energy of $2,400 (assuming no interest). If you stretch the life to 10 years the cost goes down somewhat, but it is still going to be expensive.

Don't get me wrong; what Tesla is offering is a huge opportunity to make renewable energy viable for the masses, and will likely buy one for my next home. It just requires energy prices to be much higher (or large subsidies) to be economically viable.

Problem is the EFB always needs to be up to date and synchronized between pilot and copilot. I imagine the problem was associated with a Jeppsen update more than the ipad, but the recent wifi hack does bring that into question some...

And it's cost is twice what a lead acid solution could be made for. I priced a peak shaving battery for a commercial building, and we were looking at a cost of $300/kWh for the battery, and a savings over the 1,000 cycles of ...$250/kWh(B).

The big challenge for utilities is the 5/6-7/8PM time frame when solar production drops to near zero and lighting consumption goes up. Batteries are a good solution for time shifting noon-3PM production to this window. This will be economical when peak pricing shifts from 12-6PM to 1-7PM. It has already shifted one hour from 5 years ago. Unfortunately, this will make PV a worse payback.

Thermodynamics. You are using at least twice the energy to convert the CO2 and H2O to diesel as the chemical energy in the diesel. Factor in efficiency of the engine that is burning said diesel, and you are at best around 15% efficiency, but 8% is much more likely.

In contrast, using the "renewable energy source" directly yields much higher net benefit.

Effectively, this is a battery with terrible efficiency meant to make the oil industry look green.

Now, as I said in my original post, sometimes 8% efficiency isn't bad-- if it is able to use energy that would otherwise be wasted. Usually that is not the case with a process that requires heating something to 800C, but who knows.

All well and good, but doesn't exactly solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

The most interesting application of things like this is if they can take advantage of spikes of excess energy availability-- essentially making them a battery.

No different than when the "talkie" was expected to revolutionize education. The thing that drives teacher count and pay is the need to adapt the education to individual pupils.

Moreover, if the Tech doesn't have any child skills, it will likely be a 1:20 ratio, and you are right back at $1/student hour just for the tech.

Change needs to happen, but the most economical solution is parent involvement.