Inelastic demand will pay for storage as long as energy prices are not below market equilibrium. So there's still no problem.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Your link says "the rate may be increasing," and "possible sea level rise over the 21st century of between 56 and 200 cm."
Plan B is significantly less storage, not much more than what's needed to keep the grid up, and prices set at market equilibrium. This will prevent blackouts even at night when the wind isn't blowing, unless you think that demand for electricity is perfectly inelastic?
he changed lanes right in front of the truck and from not more than 15 feet in front of him
That's an unsafe lane change.
Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good.
"Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones."
(Right-angle crashes are much more dangerous to the occupants than rear end crashes, so exchanging the former for the latter results in a net improvement in safety.)
To further improve the safety of red-light cameras, consider that almost all rear-end collisions are caused by people tailgating. If each red-light camera were turned into a combination red-light and speed camera, people would slow down when approaching intersections, so someone slamming on their brakes at the last minute would be less likely to be hit from behind.
I don't want to push my Tesla the last 130 miles of a 400 mile journey after the battery runs out.
What do you do differently when your internal combustion engine vehicle runs out of fuel?
we can very easily maintain our infrastructure, but we choose not to
I wonder if there's a 12-step program for that?
We just need the courage to admit that traffic congestion is a type of shortage, and that chronic shortages are caused by price ceilings. Is holding prices below market equilibrium ever a wise long-term strategy?
the simple fact is we do not fund american infrastructure enough
But isn't our inability to maintain our existing infrastructure a sign that we're living beyond our means?
Why did you stop reading after the first sentence?
I'm just saying that if you make a bunch of projections to prove something, and the one that proves it the least is 20% off, you can't claim your projections are good.
Is it reasonable to expect a model that fits the data perfectly?
ALL Taxes are regressive.
A revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive. If the tax were $1 per gallon of gasoline, and if the average person used 500 gallons of gasoline in a year, everyone would receive a $500 tax rebate every year. For a poor person, that's a lot of money. And since the truly poor don't drive, they won't be the ones paying the tax in the first place.
All of the models used to predict GW have failed, miserably...
We're taking food and converting it to fuel...
That makes bicycles, which get 48 miles per gallon of orange juice, sound bad.
And if it's wrong to use a natural resource for transportation when that same resource can also be used to produce food, then why are we using fossil fuels for transportation?
And is it wrong to use land to produce biofuels if the biofuel is used to produce or transport food?
For these reasons, the "no food for fuels" argument doesn't make perfect sense to me.
...using a fingerprint database to show that cash isn't anonymous.