I live in New York. A very old very famous manufacturer of firearms, Remington Arms, which employed hundreds of people and was the economic engine of its community was forced by the State of New York to shut down. That community cannot replace what was lost when the factory closed. Poverty, crime, drugs have moved in to the void.
You may be right that guns are are corrosive to a democratic society, that's an open debate. But the people who depended on that factory had the rug pulled and real harm was done without any regard to their welfare. And not everyone who depended on the factory worked there, deli owners and dry cleaners, these types of legitimate businesses are damaged when a major employer closes doors.
I suppose I relate this story to you just to show that, there are other people who think like you, guns are stigmatized, and it has a real human cost. We should not be flippant with our neighbor's well being, because we can't predict the turns of fate, one day it might be our turn.
Your statement is not grounded in the truth. Remnington did not shut down because of government interference. They employed a grand total of 100 people in NY. Hardly the "economic engine of its community"
They shutdown because they sold 7.5 million guns that could fire without someone pulling the trigger and 60 minutes exposed it.
And you should know that their building is being converted into a 250,000 sqft AI data center. So it's not like employment is just lost in the area.
Yup. When you make a boo-boo that big there's no recovery. And since they hid the problem it grew and grew. Personally, I would like to see hiding major safety defects become a criminal charge with the provision that if you go to the cops before they come looking that you're not guilty even if you share in the guilt.
straw man argument. This was about social stigma of weapons and you told a story about a factory being force closed and the surrounding community degrading by that.
We should not keep bad things alive just because jobs depend on it.
How much does power and grid delivery cost in Canada to make this economical? You're into this for $15,000 what is your payback period? Are there other ameliorating criteria for success?
I'm actually in GA (Canadian Solar is the panel manufacturer - CSI). Power is cheap in my region, and I was in ~$30k after all costs including the battery storage (LFP).
It covers 95+% of the my usage, and I use a fair chunk of power. My payback period will be almost exactly 120 months (10 years) if my power costs remained the same as they did at estimation time.
But they won't. We're already seeing relatively large rate increases (GA power has "locked" rates but conveniently has a floating "fuel charge" which is currently more than the base rate per watt...).
I expect it to take 6 to 8 years to entirely recoup costs. It helps that I did the install myself, so I avoided contractor markup. Quotes from contractors for a similar install were running ~60k+ which felt (and was) insane, although STILL profitable over the lifespan of the install.
Panels should then last another 20+ years after repayment with only minor maintenance.
It's shocking how easily they pay for themselves right now, assuming you get decent sun on your property.
That sounds like a reasonable investment I appreciate you walking me through it, thanks.
I'm in New York state, power here is still relatively cheap, $0.2/kwh delivered, low solar insolation angle and snow cover during highest demand months should strongly disincentize solar here. Some homeowners took the plunge when rebates and incentives were at their peak but those are starting to phase out.
We're still seeing a high rate of industrial solar being placed in ag zones. New York has some of the most fertile soil in the country, and supplies significant ag resources to the northeast. cSi cells are liable to leach lead into ag soil and watersheds, and solid waste disposal are looming problems without regulatory structure in New York. I'm afraid that in my home state we're going to see a net negative impact from solar.
The state is now pushing local municipalities to site grid scale BESS systems. This works because storage doesn't need to be close to demand, so they're being pushed into poor rural communities. The problem is local fire departments are undertrained and under equipped to deal with emergencies at BESS sites. It's inevitable we'll see an uncontained fire in upstate New York and the consequences will be difficult to manage.
This all may sound like gripe. But I'm genuinely curious about the economics of solar because at the end of the day it's the determining factor in the cost benefit analysis.
Modern production no longer includes lead (lead free solder).
For comparison... a single tank of leaded gasoline could hold more lead (1.1g/gallon) than a solar panel and unlike solar panels where the lead is insoluble and stable... burning the gasoline aerosolized the lead. So does burning coal (another significant source of lead contamination...).
Basically - I'd worry a hell of a lot more about lead pipes, lead paint, lead coal ash, and lead av gas before I worried about lead in panels. Lead solder is used in a wide variety of products still, but it's usually not considered a contamination risk.
---
Look - all forms of power generation have risks and downsides. Solar does outstandingly well compared to basically everything else we've got. It also happens to be cheaper to deploy, and it's still getting cheaper.
If I were rural and had to pick between an ESS system with LFP batteries and a coal plant... I'd pick the batteries EVERY DAMN TIME. Hell - I'd probably pick an LFP ESS system over a new golf course in terms of my own safety...
Yes, today there are zero coal plants (although one that uses it as an alternative generation means still).
Funny that we've managed that over the last ~10 years... it's almost like some other power sources are magically replacing the harm that they'd do?
because there were plenty of them ~2010, I'm aware of at least 8, I'll list them
- Samuel A. Carlson Electric Generating Station (still uses coal as alternate fuel today)
- Fort Drum (converted from coal in 2013)
- Kodak Park (converted from coal in 2018)
- Westover 8 (coal, retired in 2011)
- Hickling Power Station (coal, retired in 2000, so I didn't count this as one of the 8)
- Cayuga 1, 2, IC1, and IC2 (coal, retired in 2019)
- Dunkirk Generating Station (coal, retired 2016)
- Huntley Generating Station (coal, retired 2016)
- Somerset (coal, retired 2020)
Almost like... installing alternative power means we can remove really, really nasty sources? And hey, NY isn't as strong a contender for solar as it is wind. But the economics of wind are a lot harder in more places, and solar is still gaining ground (47% decrease in installation costs measured in NY over the last decade).
And I'm aware a lot of this is a shift to natural gas, it's cheap and flexible, so we're bridging old plants to ng as we ramp up alternatives.
Maybe you should consider what it is you're looking for in policies instead?
Solar didn't replace the coal because solar isn't productive in winter when demand is highest.
>And I'm aware a lot of this is a shift to natural gas
Woops, there it is
>Maybe you should consider what it is you're looking for in policies instead?
I'm looking for truth in advertising. Solar has been adopted largely for political reasons, without duly recognizing the full cost.
Batteries are being pushed into NY now to shift solar power from day to night, and from sunny days to cloudy days, a cost not accounted in the original sales pitch. Liquid phase batteries containing toxic chemicals and track record of fires - being pushed into poor communities than can't afford to properly deal with the issues.
But even batteries won't fix the real problem - solar is seasonal, and it produces power during the summer, and in New York the summers are warm and pleasant. But in the winter, when it's cold and dark, solar power drops out, and there's nothing you can do to fix that.
Now the goal post is shifting again, and the search is on for a site to build a nuke plant along the shore of Lake Ontario - far from the strong NIMBY environmental groups of NYC
Frankly, the US EPA has established there is no safe level of lead exposure. Lead is bioaccumulative. To be placing lead containing materials in prime ag land should be considered seriously and with a sober mind.
I spoke to a colleague today who works closely with rural communities on emerging issues like industrial solar. He says he is recommending his clients to require baseline soil testing and annual soil testing to confirm hazardous materials are not being released to the environment. He said his clients have not seen elevated lead levels, but the concern is warranted. He also recommends 30 year decommissioning bonds be established prior to construction and $50,000 highway bonds for damage to road surface. Bottom line, serious people are requiring serious commitments from solar developers.
Look - I agree with you that concern is appropriate.
I disagree strongly with you when you start making claims like
> cSi cells are liable to leach lead into ag soil and watersheds, and solid waste disposal are looming problems without regulatory structure in New York. I'm afraid that in my home state we're going to see a net negative impact from solar.
I think you're no longer making a real argument based on facts and data at this point, you're making an emotional appeal that supports your existing bias. You're taking any negative, exhaustively focusing on it with exclusion of facts about alternative power generation means, and then declaring solar bad.
But I think the blunt reality is that basically every other form of power generation we have has negatives that outweigh those of solar (often by fairly incredible margins when we look at generation costs alongside those negative externalities).
So if you really think that moving batteries once for installation is more harmful to road surfaces than a never ending stream of fuel tankers that weigh up near 100k lbs... or that solar is worse than fracking for natural gas, or pollution from coal, or the environmental destruction and waterway damage from hydro... Well, then we don't agree. Period.
And sadly for you... solar has the benefit of being much cheaper to install and maintain. So the economics mean it's coming.
Not at all. Basically everywhere had a one for one feed in tariff when residential solar was new in their area.
Friends in Australia are still grandfathered into that (they got a 1.3kw system in like 1990)
In Germany for a long time the law was three to one for green energy you generated and gave to the grid. Ie you put in 1kwh they credit you 3.
Even today basically every location can grid tie and get a feed in tariff, the ratio just depends on how many people in your area got residential solar before you.
Subtropical latitudes in continental US markets, you're looking at like $2/yr/sq ft of value for the power output.
I'd want solar panels for like $5/sq ft installed, expecting 10 years of life.
It's going to cost $1000 minimum to install, so the panels need to cost $2/sq ft x 300 sq ft to make this worth it. $1000 to install 300 sq ft + inverter and electrical panel upgrades seems light but might be reasonable we'll go with it.
Larger than a balcony, but maybe in the realm of possibility for a roof.
Right now solar panels cost what? $10 per square foot? Have they reached the physical limit of economic production/storage/transportation at $10 per sq ft or can it go lower?
(Let's not get into battery micro-storage economics).
When you consider your other option is a whole house generator which sits idle 99.99% of the time, requires regular maintenance, vs the fact that a solar / battery setup is providing resiliency AND lowering your power bill every month, it seems like solar / bat is a no brainer.
Your money, your choices, but I know which one I'm doing when I get a single family home.
Such as? I've looked into the options, you can either get a whole house generator, which suffers from all the issues I described, or get a solar setup. I suppose if you lived by a stream you might be able to hook up a microturbine for hydro but that's very situational.
Cost is not the highest deciding factor for me. The resiliency renewables grant you would be worth it even at a premium
>I mostly see their products as commodity at this point, with strong open source contenders.
> Eventually it will become hard to justify the premium on these models.
On the contrary, the model is the moat.
The model represents embodied capital expenditure in the form of training. Training is not free, and it is not a commodity, it is heavily influence by curation.
Eventually the ever-increasing training expense will reduce the competition to 2-3 participants running cutting edge inference. Nobody else will be able to afford the chips, watts, and warehouse. It's a physics problem - not a lack of will.
If you're a retail user, and a lower-tier model is suitable for your work, you'll have commodity LLM's to help you. Deprecated models running on tired silicon. Corporate surveillance and ad-injection.
But if you're working on high-stakes problems in real time, you're going to want the best money can buy, so you'll concentrate your spend on the cutting-edge products, open API's, a suite of performance monitoring tools and on-the-fly engineering support. And since the cutting edge is highly sought after, it's a seller's market. The cutting edge products buoyed by institutional spend will pull away from the pack. Their performance will far exceed what you're using, because your work isn't important. Hockey stick curve. Haves and Have-Nots.
The economic reality is predetermined by today's physical constraints - paradigm shifting breakthroughs in quantum computing and superconductors could change the calculus but, like atomic fusion power, don't count on it being soon.
Police work for the State. The State orders them to work for the Public when it interests the State. Intervening in violent crime and property crime can be seen, cynically, as a PR move.
To be beholden to the State for justice and protection is fine when the State is beholden to the Public for their consent. Today, in the West, the Public has been so thoroughly disarmed, and /disrobed/, that consent is a formality, consent can no longer be withheld.
Look no further than Flock and FISA for the ongoing crisis of consent.
When cops are released from the State apparatus, they'll be given the respect and admiration they deserve. Until then, it's difficult to separate them from their incentive structure.
I'm sorry you went through a difficult time of your life, I can relate. I would like to point out a gun doesn't make destroying oneself any easier. They are heavy and cold and they have a particular smell, they taste like metal, and the hole in the end of the barrel so strongly implies destruction that even pointing it at oneself carries incredible gravity. Many people that purchase a gun for this purpose abandon the idea when they have the object in their hands.
Before crystallizing strong opinions about guns I suggest you spend some time learning to wield them. It's trivial to travel to a place that embraces guns and engage in a training session. A lot of people are surprised that the reality of it is very different than they imagined. It's not like in the movies. Kind of like how driving a car is not like in the movies. I have many friends who have no interest in guns who I have introduced to shooting, and even though they have not changed their opinions they told me they enjoyed the experience. With enough familiarity guns are not feared, but respected, similar to driving a car makes first time drivers nervous. We are surrounded daily by miriad tools we take for granted daily that have awesome lethal power within them, we'd all be wise to remember.
I joined the cadets at school. I've shot pistols, rifles, even a Bren machine gun, which was fun. I'm under no illusions that guns in movies are realistic ;)
edit: and the statistics on gun suicide contradict your point, which I missed earlier [0]
Which partly drives my curiousity around this (and I realise that my tone on the original question was harsher than I meant - this is genuine curiosity). I just cannot envisage a situation where a gun would improve matters. I've been in a few fights, have some scars. Even in those situations, having a gun would not have improved the situation, and might very well have killed me. So, yeah, I'm really curious about why you think making guns more widely available would be good?
Well said, I will also add that the source of all fear is ignorance, and that includes everything, from guns to disease to imaginary monsters. You do not cure it through avoidance, quite the opposite.
They do for reasons, but if those reasons are not compelling they will move. There are already machine stops all over - many tiny near ghost towns have one (often not in city limits - farmers often have a side business and this is one option). If those machine shops can compete better because they don't have the regulation the customes will find them.
Yes and the response is telling you that you can build something orders of magnitude more sophisticated without any trouble. The point is, the firearm is not the tube the projectile comes out of. Firearm is closely defined and not intuitive to the general public.
You may be right that guns are are corrosive to a democratic society, that's an open debate. But the people who depended on that factory had the rug pulled and real harm was done without any regard to their welfare. And not everyone who depended on the factory worked there, deli owners and dry cleaners, these types of legitimate businesses are damaged when a major employer closes doors.
I suppose I relate this story to you just to show that, there are other people who think like you, guns are stigmatized, and it has a real human cost. We should not be flippant with our neighbor's well being, because we can't predict the turns of fate, one day it might be our turn.
reply