The modern banking apparatus would devour any fixed standard currency in a few weeks by manipulating the value. It would be like being paid ij bitcoin. Every time the plebs needed to buy more than usual, money would be worthless. Every time they were short on money and needed to sell it would be super valuable.

The only fix is redistribution. Wealth exponentially agglomerates, you have to spread it out once it does or your economic system breaks.

It was called horse and sparrow before that.

Anyone who is 89 or younger was 9 when wwii ended. They did not fight in wwii. You are talking about some combination of silent generation and baby boomers.

Most if the US government is baby boomers or gen x. Only a handful are over 77

This only works if you pretend the organic farm depletes soil carbon and emits NO2 at the same rate as the fertilizer farm, fugitive methane doesn’t exist (anything with fossil gas in its upstream suplly chain has its emissions under-reported by a factor of about 3), and that the vast tracts of land poisoned and degraded by fracking are completely fine.

You also have to cherry pick small scale lifestyle blocks for your analysis and assume that the land previously degraded by industrial agriculture could be used further at the same yield.

Yup. Definite concern troll behavior.

Pretending the worst prices in the most expensive place in the world for solar are normal. Then pulling the hostage shield politics card in a thread about public spending. Now crying victim.

Completely standard conservative reactionary behavior.

It’s always correct to dismiss concern trolls.

Wouldn’t it depend on the artificial structure and how much water you are adding?

Like a piece of foam painted with pure white IR-emissive CaCO2 is going to be >10 degrees cooler than a black panel with an air gap and glass.

There are likely tradeoffs (water and cost for the tree being the main downside).

Personally I think both is good https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/08/25/sunagri-reveals-agrivoltaics-performance-in-heat-waves/

Less water, more elecricity and cooler temps than either alone.

You’re just spreading propaganda.

If you don’t personally want a thing then just shut up rather than polluting a discussion about a completely different use case.

Wild concept: It’s possible to offer a fair price to someone who can. You don’t need to pay $20k for one day’s labour (although you probably do need to pay about $1k for an hour for a licensed electrician to inspect and do the final hookup if you want to AC feed for winter and cloudy days). You do not need to pay $1/W or wait years for grid tie if you have a battery and size for self consumption.

Given how thoroughly ripped off you are and how dismissive you are of the price people in civilised countries consider normal, I’ll assume you’re in the US. Signature solar sell panels for 31c/W hybrid off-grid inverters for $2k and batteries for $280/kWh. You can probably do better if you look around and don’t just listen to the door to door MLM scammers.

Pv is now around $30/m^2 wholesale and $60/m^2 retail.

Not much more expensive than a sheet metal roof (far cheaper than a mature tree after all the water and tending), but a sheet metal roof doesn’t produce $100/yr worth of electricity.

Tree good. If can’t afford tree, then pv obvious choice.

You can buy the panels, inverter, racking and a battery which produces more than enough for anything smaller than a mansion for <$10k. Batteries are also not really necessary and can be added later.

Why are you paying > $20k for someone to put in 60 screws and a piece of conduit?

But car drivers crash into them and hurt themselves sometimes or birds perch and poop on cars. Not worth having trees /s

(i edited above accidentally hit enter too soon)

Long duration storage isn’t used year round. Charge with wind in autumn->don’t burn stuff during jan/dec or dunkelflaute isn’t an edge case, it’s about 10% of all energy and the only real use case where renewables absolutely need LDES.

Yes in a scenario, which you are in a cold climate which it is always cold outside. Then yes, thermal energy storage would be an extremely efficient option.

I’m not sure I follow why this is an edge case. Space heating indoor areas with surplus wind energy stored in september-november when it peaks is the absolute largest block of inflexible demand for >100 hour storage. With PCM or suitable risk management of high temp. sensible heat it represents the plurality of potential storage demand.

Batteries may still win due to flexibility and prevalence of solar, but I can’t think of a better use case for thermal storage.

It’s also probably the oldest storage tech by about 8000-100,000 years

well no storage can be 100% efficient but you are correct that thermal storage is very efficient if you want a thermal gradient to leverage for heating (cooling as well)

If I have a room, and I want it hotter than outside now, and hotter than outside later, then putting an insulated box in the room and heating the stuff inside the box, then adjusting the lid to heat the room at the rate I want is 100% efficient. There is no loss eitber in practice or in principle nor any mechanism for one. This is true so long as I want all of the heat, even if I stored high grade heat and run it through a heat engine to make work before heating the room with low grade heat (in which case I might even call it a coefficient of performance of 1.3 or “130%”). I will never match the COP of a similarly engineered heat pump if all I want is low grade though, so in this sense “efficiency” is <100%.

Carnot batteries (where I have a box but don’t want heat now or later but do want work) are quite inefficient (10-50% + a time based loss that only becomes negligible at the GWh scale) , or thermal storage in unheated environments (time based loss) are much less efficient.

A separate heat and cold store from a heat pump feeding a combined heat and power generator is another variation (where a COP might come close to or exceed 1).

F=ma is a bit of a thought terminating cliche (as well as being poor communication and missing a term). E=Fh=mgh. As per my link there are plenty of suitable hills and gullies over about 90% of where people live. A human made structure to lift will always be questionable.

I guess it depends on what you mean by rare long duration events but yes one can imagine a situation where the burning of hydrogen is justified on an energy needs basis

A handful of hours of storage (3-12) can pretty trivially meet loads 90-99% of the time. The remainder tends to be events that are 50-200 hours. Pumped hydro and non-round-trip storage (such as delaying EV charging, overprovisioning an industrial drying step and running it when electricity is cheap, direct ammonia electrolysis for fertiliser during high production times, or storing domestic heat in a pond for winter) can cover most of these.

For the remainder (odd once-in-a-decade weather events or major infrastructure failures) the duration is even longer (100-1000 hours). One strategy is to just keep fossil gas generators around because 100 million tonnes of CO2 emitted and 1100 tonnes of CO2 removed that month may be easier than 0 and 1000. Another is to make something with electricity to burn (which could involve an electrolyser and could involve hydrogen gas storage but does not have to).

Elaboration on the reasons why would be nice.

Isn’t there a decent argument they’ve abandoned the trademark?

Any second now we’ll catch him doing something illegal. After the successful coup by our oathkeeper buddies, then he’ll never suspect we’re watching!

Spain and china managed just fine. Rail costs way less than 20 lane highways.

It’s already in california.