Scientists have a year to build a Mr Fusion.
I thought the same thing...seriously. NASA usually delivers good bang for the buck, and this is the best way to fund efforts for the common good in our cyberpunk dystopia.
Rain cleans the panels. You can't be talking about snow because enough of that falls to bury any fixed structure.
Tilt them near-vertical for the winter, to the point that snow doesn't stay on them. Lost generation from the non-optimal angle should be less than that from snow buildup. Antarctic bases use solar extensively for PV and water heating so it's clearly usable in the winter.
There's a difference? I don't think a subset of Americans (as in "Estadounidense") is enough to offset the average, no matter how special they think they are.
"Got it right?" Both created some temporary, unsustainable benefit but left disastrous consequences that we're still experiencing today. They're the people who cooked the goose that laid the golden eggs, and you're saying "Mmm mmm that goose sure was tasty! Cooking it was the right thing to do!"
No, Thatcher and Reagan got it the most wrong of all. Not as wrong as Mao, but incredibly wrong by Western standards.
Put them on building rooves. If dirt builds up on the anti-stick coatings they all come with that work so well that they're practically maintenance-free, spray them with a garden hose a couple times a year. Snow naturally falls off of tilted surfaces once it builds up to a certain level. Bam, problems solved.
You understand that for a significant portion of the global population, coal == electricity, right?
No, I've researched this. Coal is used heavily in the US midwest and some areas in China. Everywhere else, it makes up a small to nonexistent fraction of the electrical supply. And outside of those very coal-heavy areas in the US and China, driving an electric car is far cleaner.
Riding a technologically backwards bicycle *and* not going anywhere? Oh that's even more ironic! They'll love it!
The kind of disaster that happens when you change the weather patterns over a highly populated planet with established, fixed human settlements that don't handle change well. Wars and unrest over land and resources.
If we were nomadic and there were far less of us you might have a point, but did you consider that there could be some other differences between a planet inhabited by dinosaurs that were mostly dumber than our housepets and never learned to use a single tool, and one inhabited by modern forest-clearing humans?
That's like saying the latest and greatest gaming PC of today should cost less than the latest and greatest of 10 years ago. I'd say, if it were even possible, that a car of identical spec and quality to one made 30 years ago, would cost a lot less, but such a thing doesn't exist.
So if you are a risk adverse sociopath then what would stop you from going on a near endless crime spree?
If the crimes take place in a country will little international pull, say Jamaica and you are sitting in Nigeria and the Jamaican cops do somehow connect you to the crime then I still suspect that you will be fairly safe. It would take a fairly advanced investigation and huge international machinations to bring you to justice. Not impossible but much harder than some local guy waving a gun in the bank.
Now if you do the same crimes in NYC and you are sitting in Britain then the equation changes. Still going to be hard for the justice officials but well within their resources.
Those are pretty extreme examples but it still may apply where a guy robs a bank with a drone, flies the money to a remote location that he observes with a second drone and when the coast seems clear he flies the money to his location. Keep in mind that he can leave the money in the remote location for weeks if he needs to and even have the robot hop every now and then to a new remote location. They are going to need a whole new dye pack technology.
I understand you may be intending it as a joke, with a bite, but they do tell you the information they use/store up front.