[sdduuuude]

Not a whole lot exciting happening around here. Flat to 5% down sounds about right.

I’m sure I mentioned this, but if you see a house w/ a 1-car garage in Clairemont, it probably isn’t the best ‘hood.

[sdduuuude]

I have a 4.5 HP motor they could use if they would like to shred the other little plastic lego bots into tiny pieces.

[sdduuuude]

Trucks are good for this cuz you can use the weight of the batteries to better balance out the weight of the vehicle towards the rear to give you better traction/handling in the unloaded state.

Is that event in San Diego ?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Jacarandoso]An, if you add exceptional needs for generation to the equation you can quit talking about apples to apples altogether.

Sdduuuude, I saw what you were posting about the tiered costs on another thread. It’s also a good point. In my case I am thinking about deliberately increasing my energy needs in conjunction with a solar electricity installation. This would be for farming and perhaps other cottage industry purposes on the land. I am not sure I would consider solar just to run the house, because our energy use is low and there are actually a few ways to get it lower easily. Solar hot water heater and wood burning stove are first. We have tons of free wood,Olive and Oak.

What I would really like is if a utility wanted to put solar on my property on an easement and pay me to do it. Which brings up another question, when are the utilities going to start using fuel cell technology, or have they? If it’s good they will, right?[/quote]

This is why we’re looking at getting solar at the same time we get a plug in electric car. Our current usage is pretty low. But if we were charging up our commuter car, it would make more sense.

But since I’m in the drive-it-till-it-won’t-drive-anymore school of car purchasing… We’ve got a while… My husband’s 95 truck is still robust as ever.[/quote]

I think solar usually generates 12v DC directly, then is converted to 120V AC. Then you plug the car in and it converts it back to DC, maybe even 12V DC.

I’m thinking you just charge the car directly from the solar system and avoid the losses associated with conversion from DC-> AC-> DC.

When the ’95 truck dies, get your robot-building kids to pull the engine and put an electric motor kit into the truck.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=walterwhite]Waterbeds are synonymous w swinging wild sex in the 70s for me. That was mybperception in jhs[/quote]

Bow-chicka-wow-wow

[sdduuuude]

It depends. If FLU refinances again, then yes, they’ll go down next week.

[sdduuuude]

One thing to consider in this – I have mentioned this elsewhere in solar discussions – electricity is priced in tiers here in SD.

Thus, your paback varies dramatically depending on how much electricity you use.

If you only use the baseline, then you are using solar dollars to buy-down fairly inexpensive electricity.

If you use enough to put you into the third or fourth tier, you are using solar dollars to buy down expensive electricity.

Also, as you install more and more solar capacity, you reduce the marginal effect as you move down through the electricity price tiers.

Pricing to install solar is also tiered. You have to buy panels and equipment to condition the electricity so it can be fed into the grid. The first set of conditioning equipment can handle so many panels (lets say it is 30 panels for example). After that, you need more conditioning capacity. So, the first panel is very expensive because you ahve to buy conditioning equipment for it and the capacity of that equipment is 30 panels. So, to add panels 2 through 30 isn’t so bad. But, the 31st panel is expensive again.

So, you have to really understand how and where the cost tiers of installing match up with the savings tiers of how electricity is priced.

Using solar to replace ALL of your electricity needs may not be optimal. Using solar to drop your usage from a high tier to a low tier may have a much shorter payoff period.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=walterwhite]Have any of you guys ever had sex on tempurpedic?[/quote]

Somewhere in there is a really funny joke about firmness.

[sdduuuude]

Speaking of less-expensive, more expansive – check this out !

http://curbed.com/archives/2011/09/16/the-ridiculously-large-ranches-of-the-argentinian-interior.php

1M Acres for $10M !

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=sdduuuude]instead of driving to see each other because asphalt and concrete are just too complex.[/quote]

Not too complex — too expensive.

Private industry is great at building toll roads. If our interstates and state roads had been built by private industry, they would all be toll roads because they’d have to be paid for. Would people still want to drive 45 minutes each way every day to and from work if they had to pay $30 for the privilege? I doubt it, so yeah, this would have had a huge effect on the structure of our towns and cities.[/quote]

I doubt it. People almost ubiquitously prefer more space to less (i.e. bigger lots cost more than smaller lots, houses with more sq. ft. cost more than houses with fewe sq. ft, etc.) and it is foolish to assume that developers and buyers would let the building of a road get in the way of getting out to the less expensive, more expansive land.

While I agree the transportation methods might be different than they are now, people wouldn’t crowd into the cities because the gov. isn’t building roads for them. It’s just the stuipidist thing I’ve ever heard.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=flu]Ughh…….More soul-less cars on the road…Great……

Coming soon to a prius near you…. The infamous blue screen of death from Microsoft software…..

Toyota and Microsoft hook up on next-gen telematics

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/06/toyota-and-microsoft-hook-up-on-next-gen-telematics/%5B/quote%5D

With Toyota and MS teaming up, when you get a blue-screen of death, the system will probalby shut down the brakes, go full-throttle, and lock the steering dead ahead.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]sdduuuude, I’m not ideologically rigid. I’m for what works.

BTW, if the government didn’t build and maintain highways, or provide infrastructure to distant areas, the suburbs would not exist.[/quote]

Because no private citizen could POSSIBLY figure out how to build a road from point A to point B. It’s just something that couldn’t possibly happen. It’s sooooooo complicated that it requires a government employee to figure it out. Without the government to take their tax money and build the road for them, they would sit there, looking across the county at each other wondering how in the hell could we possibly get from here to there. They would have to call each other on their non-government-built smart phones using a wireless mobile phone network – one of the most complicated engineering marvels in the world also created by a non-government entity – instead of driving to see each other because asphalt and concrete are just too complex.

[sdduuuude]

That is pretty cool, and it hits home for me, personally, too.

The first day of the first programming class I ever took (It was 1982. The language was FORTRAN). We were discussing uses for computer programs. I vividly remember the professor saying that the general consensus in the computer industry at the time was that it was impossible to write the software that would allow a car to drive itself in real-world conditions. That was simply not a reasonable application for software.

Everyone pretty much nodded in agreement “yeah – that would be pretty much impossible.” I vividly remember him saying it and I remmeber agreeing with him wholeheartedly.

And ever since then, I always paid attention to any article regarding self-driving cars because I started to think maybe it was possible. 30 years later, the impossible is possible. Really neat.

[sdduuuude]

Yes – nothing price won’t fix. Agreed.

I guess that is the difference between the foreclosure tsunami and the private seller tsunami. The private sellers will hold out for an unreasonably high amount while the banks will just sell it.

Still, the number of people who want to sell is very telling, methinks. The burden of making monthly payments for a house priced x on a house worth 0.7 * x is starting to take its toll and there truly is no way out. The future implications to the economy are bad.

People will either continue to divert funds (that could otherwise go into the economy) toward paying off that debt; sell the house at a loss; or get foreclosed on.

Different people have different pain thresholds/timelines and so the pain gets spread out over a long time.

So, the private seller tsunami isn’t really a tsunami. Just a slowly rising tide.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]You can’t force people to live where they don’t want.[/quote]

HAHAHAHA. Such a funny thing for you, of all people to say. All this “central planning” and “we should do this” and “the gov should do that” and you say THAT.

You are truly a study in contradiction.

[Author]

Posts