No, investors have gotten risk-adverse.
They aren't very cost effective for existing homes, but for new construction they can save you tons on money on heating and cooling, giving you up to a 5x multiplier for the energy you put in. All new construction should have them.
Money isn't actually something that has value in and of itself, it is an abstraction for something that has value. The actual value is on the work it represents and the value add that work creates. If money just sits there doing nothing and not producing more work, it is not a benefit to the system.
Capital is good when it is invested into more production. In the past, that was primary accomplished by the bank investing your savings or the stock market doing the same into companies expanding their production.
Much of the problem with modern capital is that instead of investing into more production, it is focusing on non-productive or anti-productive strategies - downsizing (anti-productive), stock buybacks (increases stock price but no investment into real wealth production), bubble speculation (gambling).
Frankly, the only sustainable way to colonize Mars is to terraform it. It's doable, if expensive, in only a few hundred years. Having colonies there beforehand, however, would be counterproductive since you'd likely need to bombard it with comets to up the volatiles.
Completely true. And all of the uninhabited area of Earth (Arctic Lands, Antarctica, Sahara and other deserts, Siberia, etc) is far, far nicer than Mars for humans to live in.
Sending them to space is totally not a viable means to compensate for population growth on Earth. The cost for each person is so astronomically high we couldn't afford to send more than a handful of people. The way to get population under control on any planet is to get people to have less kids.
And for the same reason, the only viable way to grow a population on a colony past a bare minimum is to get them to have more kids.
You're unlikely to approach 50% efficiency in converting water to hydrogen onboard a car which is done by USING ELECTRICITY. Which would then have to pass through your 50% (real world) efficient fuel cell to turn back into electricity to drive the electric motors that fuel cells drive.
Battery recharge efficiencies are near 90%. Even in a fuel cell car it would be stupid not to use them to store regenerate breaking power.
"Even at $0.25 / L you're looking at a very expensive source for water when desalinization happens."
Yet still much cheaper than the bottled water everyone drinks.
Ozzy uses young bats.
I went from $80/month phone subsidized 2-year contract to $45/month no contract BYOD on AT&T.
Owners in the area need to put these in their cars:
The "salary of $1 a year" is pure B.S. for all the CEOs who employ it. They get compensated in stock options worth millions. They get bonuses worth millions. They get jet planes and other perks given to them by the company. As an added benefit and tax dodge, they only have to pay lower capital gains tax rates on the stock options rather than what they would pay if it was a salary. That's why the real figure that should be reported is TOTAL compensation, not salary.
He attempted a coup in 1992, but that failed.
He gained the presidency though legitimate elections in 1998.
Though he certainly wasn't very committed to democracy while in power.
It's expensive to add to an existing home. It's much cheaper to put in a newly constructed home and should be highly encouraged for new construction.
That would be nice. Unfortunately, almost all recent nuclear plant commissions (at least in the U.S.) are still using the old designs from 40 years ago instead of anything newer.