dpierce9

I wonder if the terminal value of an EV will be higher than ICE. This seems possible if there are secondary users for batteries, motors, or if the mineral content is more valuable (e.g., obviously rare Earth and lithium but also the frames tend to have more aluminum).

First order logics can be provably sound and complete when they do not express certain arithmetic operations.

Window placement with multiple monitors is broken beyond belief. I am hoping someone from Apple is reading this thread.

Without agreeing with the paper’s general point, imagine a coal plant that emits particles which cause asthma within a 25 mile radius of the plant that also buys legit offsets for all the carbon they emit. They aren’t buying offsets for the local harms.

There are two views of this.

The first is that at any given point in time, my instantaneous energy use is offset by renewables.

The second is that over some period of time (e.g., one month) my aggregate energy use is offset by renewables.

The second is MUCH easier. When people say things are 100% renewable, I generally think they mean the second thing. This is a bit of a fudge (not wrong but not 100% level).

Power is pooled. If I buy from a supplier or group of suppliers that (1) procures only from renewable resources (2) isn’t reselling power from non renewable sources, (3) hasn’t sold the power more than once, and (4) is capable of providing my energy demands at any given time, then I am buying green power from the pool. It doesn’t matter if the actual electrons come from Ng or coal because I bought enough for the pool (the electrons I added to the pool will be used by someone else if I am using ng electrons).

Not 100% sure this is how Caltrain works but the fact that everyone is physically using the same pool does not imply that you cannot be 100% renewable if you buy from suppliers to the pool with the above properties.

Missed the part about XP. Question still applies to the 95 disk.

Is this why there was a copy of Weezer’s Buddy Holly music video was on there too?

The fast charger is the expensive part, the dispenser is not nearly so. Just like a gas station, dispensers to chargers are many-one. I was being a bit glib when I said the dispenser is a fancy switch (esp if the lines are cooled) but only just a bit.

I see a report that has Tesla’s cost as 43k per installed dispenser. That is a fully load cost, not the marginal cost of dispenser but it is good enough.

Looking at listings for gas stations for sale (with a convenience store but no auto repair), I see about 150-300k per dispenser. That isn’t exactly apples to apples but suffice to say it isn’t exactly cheap and much closer to representing the cost than the cost of a pump (which is I assume cheaper than a dispenser).

This doesn’t seem right to me. Is this 200k per dispenser? The dispenser is really just a fancy switch and a plug in a kiosk. If you are talking about the central transformer/switching systems, then yes that makes sense. But you can add a lot of dispensers to that.

A pump is only 25k to install if you don’t include the infrastructure to support the pump (tank, canopy, fire suppression, filters, etc).all that costs more than 200k.

Let’s say 25k is the marginal cost for an extra pump. What is the marginal cost for an extra dispenser?

Congress currently has, and always has had, control of regulatory agencies. There are many ways this works. In many cases, congresses created the agencies by legislation so they can simply change the powers of the agency. If they don’t like a regulation, they can pass a law overriding the regulation. If they didn’t like an agency using chevron a certain way, they can, again, pass a law. They can also withhold monies from the agencies or restrict the use of those monies.

I get that passing laws is hard but that is one of the reasons to have agencies!

Chevron was not carte blanche either.

Chevron eliminated discretion regarding how an agency interprets what powers it has been given if the law is unclear about such things.

It does not eliminate the ability to make and enforce rules if those powers/rules are clearly within the scope of the law.

I have no idea about this FTC decision on this second point but agency lawyers tend to be pretty careful about such things.

At the time they had an advertising product they were offering to solar installers based on site quality that used this feature. If I had to guess they probably stopped offering it when that product didn’t take off.