TOU isn’t the issue, it’s just the rates themselves that are out of control. The reality is electricity costs vary dramatically throughout the day and seasonally, so reflecting that in customer prices is a natural way to shift some load.
You’re right, 50k is the same as 30k, a 5ft tall hood is the same as 2.5ft, 40 mpg is the same as 20 mpg, and getting hit by a pickup is the same as a crosstrek. Look I ride a cargo bike most of the time and am very much fuckcars, but pretending like every since vehicle that isn’t a sedan is equally dangerous and polluting isn’t helpful.
So you’re saying that millions of fragile men are bullied into buying full size trucks and they have no agency whatsoever into their purchase? This is no different than exposing your kids to second hands smoke because you are afraid if you don’t smoke you won’t look cool. I seriously don’t understand why we’re making excuses and coddling these weak egos instead of actually supporting the victims of the violence these people inflict on other road users. I’m more than happy to criticize the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers for failing society as well, but that doesn’t mean the purchasers that make this all possible are innocent. It’s a rotten subculture that needs to be called out at all levels.
There’s a world of difference in pedestrian safety between a RAV4 and a Suburban or F150. Just because they call an e.g. CX30 a crossover doesn’t mean it’s as dangerous as a full size pickup truck. Your affordability argument doesn’t even make any sense - smaller vehicles are cheaper than larger vehicles. If affordability is such an issue why don’t we see more crosstreks? The mental gymnastics to avoid blaming a bunch of fragile dudes for buying ridiculously pickup trucks is absurd.
Americans don’t have the choice not to buy gigantic pickup trucks and SUVs? Gimme a break. I have never bought one, it’s not some kind of one weird trick thing, you just literally don’t fucking buy them and buy something smaller and cheaper instead.
I don’t understand the fixation on “trust” here. They set a soft target of 2030 based on their predictions at the time, now they are revising slightly but have reiterated the main points which is they are fully committed to electrification. This is a small revision, not some clear fraud like FSD. They used words like “plan”, “intend”, and “ambition”, not “promise” in their original press release. I don’t see the case that Volvo can’t be “trusted”, since they never even promised anything. Maybe I’m being pedantic, but holding Volvos feet to the fire on this doesn’t seem fair. If they said they were cancelling EVs entirely and plan to be an ICE only company, sure.
Not sure where you live, but 8kWh/day is very low for a house. You’d have to have gas heat/hot water and no/minimal AC to get anywhere close to that. Just putting this out there for perspective - almost nobody will get 2 weeks of power out of 90-100 kWh, and if they do it’s usually because they’re burning other fuels. I’m in Colorado in an all electric home and use 3x as much as you. Totally agree that we dont need such bloated EVs though.
The extra votes in PA beyond the magical single winning vote are meaningless too by that logic. And there are paths to victory for both candidates that don’t involve PA, so you don’t really know who got to cast the special winning vote until afterwards. The “swing states” only exist because of states like CA that vote more predictably. The EC is dogshit because of the disproportionate voting power and because the winner takes all at the state level (usually), not because of some post hoc analysis.
Pennsylvania is a large state, a vote there is barely worth more than a vote in California.
https://medium.com/practical-coding/whats-my-vote-worth-3ca2585b5d51
Agreed. The unfortunate conclusion here is they think that many people (particularly voters they feel are critical to this election) don’t actually care about the climate. They’re probably right too. So while the DNC platform is clear on their stance, they don’t see it as a winning issue from a campaign perspective. Frankly that’s not the worst outcome, I care more about action than campaign slogans. They need to win in order to do anything.
My point isn’t to defend the guy, it’s to put some context around the fact that half the Senate is even worse, so this is a disproportionate amount of villification. Let’s say he had an R next to his name, we then have a R majority leader and the whole Senate grinds to a halt. Then will you magically give him a pass because now being an asswipe is fully expected of him? That’s the kid gloves treatment you’re giving to the other 50 GOP senators that are the actual problem.
He’s not the Senate Majority Leader and doesn’t control what comes to a vote. I just don’t see the point of vilifying a centrist when there are 50 other lunatics that vote against progress 100% of the time. Manchin voted for all the judges, infra, chips, IRA, all the budget stuff, etc. Lets focus on the real problem - way too many GOP senators.
Manchin is a moderate that voted with Biden 88% of the time. You’ll be happy he’s not running for reelection and will be replaced with a worse R, so yay I guess? He’s the best you’ll get from WV anytime soon.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/joe-manchin/
Might need to use an oil with a lower smoke point than olive.
Another example of the legal system serving the wrong parties. Somehow NIMBYs keep blocking housing, transit, wind/solar, but when it comes to fossil extraction then they suddenly have no power.
It’s a fascinating topic. It’s top of my mind too - we have had very reliable power historically (Colorado) but in the last year had a major preemptive wildfire shutdown and a few other shutdowns (whereas literally less than 5 minutes of outage the last decade). I also got rid of my gas service last year and fully electrified. I have solar, but was waiting until battery prices dropped before going that route. Figured I’d yolo in the meantime, but that assumption has me increasingly on edge. From a climate perspective, I do hate to see a renewed interest in gas but I get why. We need cheaper batteries and standardized V2H/V2G asap.
My knowledge is probably even lower, but I do recall hearing that most of the US law is just copied from UK law as of the 1700’s, with some divergence since then.
Right, but remember only like 60% of homes have gas anyway, so that’s not necessarily the baseline from a resiliency perspective. And a huge chunk of those aren’t actually prepared to operate without electricity either. So while I agree that resiliency is worth focusing on, we should also look holistically about what gas can/cannot do and the associated costs relative to electrification/solar/storage. A modern gas home will still need a backup generator to run condensing hot water/furnace and there’s a significant cost to whole home generators, so it’s not all fun and games just having gas appliances.
That’s where local battery storage/EVs come in. Also passivhaus in and of itself is a form of resiliency - if the power goes out during a cold snap, the house will stay warm for quite some time, and the dozen kWh in a battery or the several dozen in an EV go alot further. Efficiency has a multiplying effect.
What do you mean a commercial butcher will need thousands of animals to produce the same amount of meat as a half cow locally? I haven’t heard an argument that a little meat from a bunch of animals is ethically any different than a lot of meat from one animal, just curious.