501–510 of 842 posts
I think electrolysing water into hydrogen using excess solar in the winter, then using that directly for heating in the winter would make a lot of sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think that Microsoft stock price wouldn't go down significantly if Bill Gates put 45% of the company up for sale?
He sold most of his MSFT in 2020 when stepping down from the board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess this means if a hypothetical Bill Gates sold off the vast majority of the 45% of Microsoft stock he owned then the company would then be worth a lot less? It really is weird how frequently I see the view you espouse and how nobody who repeats it seems to consider the clearest, most obvious counterexample that so completely disproves it.
In 2020, as I understand it, Bill gates sold less than 1% of MSFT on the open market there: his holding went from a bit over 2% to a bit over 1%. He had been steadily selling over the last two decades. Contrast that with Jeff Bezos, who owns 10% of Amazon, or Elon Musk who owns over 20% of Tesla. Half of Gates's holding is nothing in comparison to half of Bezos's. When you sell large share blocks like Gates did, you…
The guy above was telling me this would drive the price down. You know what actually happened though. The share price went up.
The "billionaire shares are imaginary meme" is just a rhetorical trick designed to confuse the economically illiterate.
The only interesting thing about this meme is figuring out where it came from and how it was so efficiently pumped into the public consciousness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're trying to say that insulation (and probably other factors) is not just one person's problem but an issue of a huge scale, which is true. If solar works for you, then that's great, but for a lot of people (the majority?) it wouldn't work, or at least not without spending a very large amount of money to retrofit your house for it. I think it's a good point even if stated quite poorly.
Let me put it this way: is me having solar panels making things worse for "the majority"? If so, how? Because it sounded like the usual trope that if a solution does not fix all problems for all humans everywhere, than it it sucks and the person doing what they can is a naive fool, if not a straight up villain.
What comments in this discussion are saying is that solar panels won't be cost effective, for some or possible the majority of people.
People both underestimate and overestimate what PV can do. In summer and around noon, here in western Europe, there is so much PV-electricity produced that it is _almost_ enough to fulfill all demands. In winter, the amount is like a drop in the desert. I have built a 30 kWp PV at home 2 years ago - you would think this is quite big, for a private plant. It is not enough. If I want to power a heat pump (with drilled…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you not believe in synthetic hydrocarbons? What else do you believe is a better alternative then?
Your questions are loaded. You're doing the religious person thing of "Well you don't believe in Jesus, so what do you believe in?" Just because I don't believe synthetic hydrocarbons are a good idea doesn't mean I have to have a replacement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I calculated I would need about 70 to 80 kWp (optimized for winter sun angle, e.g. pretty steep modules at 60° or 70° that relatively produce less in summer, but more in winter). I know there are sun-following installations but those need expensive mechanics and control systems. Aren't there middle-ground solutions that can be manually adjusted twice a year?
If 70 to 80 is enough in winter,I would assume that it is enough in summer?
In an off grid totally battery reliant pv system such as for some telecom applications you design the PV for December, worst month of the year for kWh production. If it will "survive" December and provide enough for the load to run 24x7 then it'll be fine for the rest of the year. At high latitudes this cha mean a 75-80 degree tilt facing south.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the problem is the allocation of the resources in the real economy. the copper production goes somewhere currently. if half of that suddenly would go to making these super long distance cables that would cause brutal inflation for a lot of things that depend on copper. (sure, eventually it would increase supply too.)
A lot of copper goes to nonelectrical uses that could probably go away. Whenever I see something mechanical made of bronze or something it always looks like a real waste. New finishes and coatings look pretty good and composites are strong and corrosion resistant, and steel is cheaper. Not everything can be replaced but some can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish you would expand and clarify the point you are trying to make. The problem with people enthusiastically proposing renewables as the cheap solution to our energy needs is the thousand "little" details like the one above. Whose only mention is in the comments like "your math is wrong, invest in insulation". No. The math isn't wrong. Bo, the consumption is correct and shouldn't "should be lower". Because it's d…
Well in Germany at least they have legislative requirements for insulation on new builds (and have for years). So that's an actual solution to the problem!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess this means if a hypothetical Bill Gates sold off the vast majority of the 45% of Microsoft stock he owned then the company would then be worth a lot less? It really is weird how frequently I see the view you espouse and how nobody who repeats it seems to consider the clearest, most obvious counterexample that so completely disproves it.
So you think that Microsoft stock price wouldn't go down significantly if Bill Gates put 45% of the company up for sale?
So yes, I think what would happen is what did happen.