Solar panels don't even come close to that yet, they are still cost effective enough to market.
You're just stealing energy from the cars.
Not sure on the numbers, but maybe this would be a good way to make a toll road.
these people that don't want to work.
In Canada, we get a whole year off after a child is born. The majority of this time can be split between the mother and father. For my first child, I didn't take any time. But for my second, I took 5 months.
I can assure you that this 5 month period was more difficult than "working". Anyone who thinks that people who are staying at home to parent babies and/or toddlers is not "working" hasn't truly experienced it. Perhaps they don't have kids, perhaps their spouse/partner does all/most of the work, or perhaps they're just not putting in the effort required to be a good parent, but either way they haven't truly experienced it.
After the first week, I was looking forward to going back to work for a "vacation" from the crazy amount of work I had at home.
It is blatantly, obviously clear to any truly thinking person that the problem is the choice, not the tool.
Though I agree that you are technically correct, I don't think that addressing the actual cause of the problem is realistic.
Take the following analogy:
You could say that bike thefts are a direct result of the choice of the thief not because some bikes are poorly locked or aren't locked at all, and you would be absolutely correct. But this does not imply that we should ignore the very real solution of making it harder for a bike thief to steal a bike by using a good bike lock.
Similarly, there is a very real solution of locking down the most convenient mass murder tool to make it much harder for the murderer to commit their crime. Does this solve the root cause? No. Is it effective? Well, look at the track record of any other country with a similar culture but restricted access to guns. (Canada, for example is inundated by American television so our cultures are about as different as the differences found between two states).
Sure the root cause would still exist. But when a person attempts a mass murder with a knife because that's all they can get their hands on, the death toll will be much lower, if any at all. If a person attempts a mass murder with a home made bomb, they might just blow themselves up trying to make the thing before getting a chance to use it on anyone. And let's be honest, there's a certain level of knowledge that a person would need to get even that far. Basically, there is no tool that is as good for the job as a gun is for murdering.
And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the choice of tools being used by many, nothing substantial is being done about the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse.
And you know what really sucks? Because there is such an intense and myopic misfocus on the real problem, interpersonal, personal/group, group/personal and group/group abuse, nothing substantial is being done about the choice of tools being used by many.
Now the feed in is around 50c I think meaning my panels pay about 60% more than if you were to do it after buying a house that doesn't have them already installed.
Actually, having just looked into this myself, I can tell you that the rate as of January 1st, 2015 is 38.4 c/kWh (source).
You're getting an amazing deal compared to current prices, but you also would have had to pay a lot more for your install costs, I imagine. So, it all balances out, I'm guessing.
So clearly there is more involved than thermodynamics.
Not true. But I see where your confusion lies...
It's still energy in vs energy out. What you are assuming is that the "energy in" portion of the equation is a simple matter of just adding up what you eat. And that the "energy out" portion is a simple matter of taking your BMR and adding in how many calories a machine says you burned in whatever exercise you did.
Really what each side of the equation is this:
energy in = [what you eat] - [what your body doesn't actually absorb (which is variable)]
energy out = [BMR (which is also variable)] + [calories burned in exercise (which is again also variable)]
So, for you with your lack of sleep, your body's metabolism dropped and therefore the BMR portion of the equation dropped too leaving you with a surplus of energy in vs your energy out.
I'm sure there were also a ton of other factors in there that moved around the various components of the equation too. But it's still energy in vs energy out.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.