Simply put, if an increase in efficiency, ecologically in this case, leads to an increase in consumption then the end result isn't a decrease in energy usage but an increase. One of the reasons carbo-hydrogen consumption has barely fallen totally is because every time we make something more efficient we have the fantastic idea to use it for something other than substituting the old energy sources. Every solar panel put to use for something that isn't turning an old power plant off is slowing the energy transition. The people on HN who rightfully ask why our software is so slow despite our chips being so fast know Jevon's paradox by heart.
It's important to point out that this applies to the infrastructure needed for green energy itself, which is not green. Solar panels, batteries, concrete, steel, rare earths, the downside of that green energy the author blasts so abundantly through is some toxic mining pit in Africa.
It's important to point out that this applies to the infrastructure needed for green energy itself, which is not green. Solar panels, batteries, concrete, steel, rare earths, the downside of that green energy the author blasts so abundantly through is some toxic mining pit in Africa.
This is a bullshit argument because all power generation has to be constructed. If you want to say that solar is especially bad compared to the construction and fuel of a coal or nuclear plant over its lifetime, have at it. But simply pointing out that deployment has an environmental cost isn't meaningful, it's just downerism.
Jevons paradox has nothing to do with what the article is about.
It only says that technological efficiency improvements in the production of something creates additional demand for it, leading to an overall increase in usage of the thing.
Nothing was made more efficient. He is not using energy from coal or other fossil fuels, so his usage displaces that usage.
> It's important to point out that this applies to the infrastructure needed for green energy itself, which is not green.
IMHO this is an indication that the adjective "green" is too vague and contradictory that it's counterproductive to use it in current discussions.
Different types of "non-green" have very different properties, different types of pollution are not interchangeable and we have to be specific about which we're talking about.
If global warming is a serious crisis, then it implies that trading off some greenhouse gases for a toxic mining pit might be a good deal, a net win from the environmental perspective, as the environmental damage to these few mining locations are far outweighed by the decrease in environmental damage throughout the planet. The same applies for nuclear waste - their environmental issues must always be considered not in absolute risk, but in comparison to the environmental cost of the generation of an equivalent (immense) quantity of fossil fuel or the environmental production costs of the immense scale battery+solar equipment to replace gigawatts of nuclear power.
Anyone who actually wants to effectively advance environmental goals has to consider possible tradeoffs of one "not green" thing versus another, and be willing to accept compromises that trade off a small harm to reduce a much bigger one; and anyone who insists that anything with an environmental cost is taboo is effectively advocating for even greater harm to the environment.
Part of this is driven by the end of net metering in lots of places. People are getting 10% or even 5% of the price for their energy that they themselves have to pay, which is why they'd rather consume it themselves.
Jevon's paradox isn't a law, and it's been really clear that it hasn't applied to electricity.
We care about cold beer and hot showers, and only want them so cold and so hot respectively. Jevon's paradox does not apply to most consumption that we are trying to modify.
One place where Jevon's paradox really does apply is driving. Which is why we need a stronger movement to at least legalize planning that allows people to live without cars. Note that I'm not even saying we must force carlessness, simply make a careless life legal. Allow people to choose to build housing and businesses such that one doesn't have to use a car. Things like removing parking minimums, etc.
Are you making the argument that we should be striving for a decrease in consumption? Because I can see no compelling argument that that should be so. In fact, we should be using way more energy. It should be green, but trying to tell people to use less is a guaranteed way for any kind of climate action to fail. Cheaper, cleaner, more abundant, is the only way we are going to move forward, people are just not going to sign up to a future we're we use less than our parents generation.
What are you talking about? If the energy is from clean sources use away, there’s no downside. The means of generating may not be produced completely cleanly but it’s something we can bear and causes a fraction of the damage fossil fuels did.
Kids today don’t understand why I call Java a posh language because of the Garbage Collector. At the time of C++, memory was scarce, and cumbersome to clean up. Well, now they don’t have to touch garbage, with posh languages, the GC does it… at the price of 2x RAM.
Then they invented NPM. And they don’t see a problem. Feels like we should reduce data centers by a factor of 7x if we removed NPM from Earth.
I think the point of this article is to reach the doubters from another angle than the usual doom-and-gloom eco-disaster or climate apocalypse approach.
It makes using solar attractive to the consumption-hungry among us, and presents it as a money-saving device: all of which will appeal to a completely new demographic than the usual environmentally-aware crowd.
Exactly this - once people are onboard, or at least interested, then they're ready to learn. Breaking the "it'll never work" dismissiveness is an important first step.
In places with net metering, it doesn't matter when you use it.
In places (like CA, under NEM2.0), where you get credits proportional to when you generate, you're still better off charging your car at night because you're getting multiplier effect when you generate during peak hours and consume at off-peak hours.
Everyone says to buy a bigger system than you think you'll need because your consumption goes up slowly over time. We're a net consumer despite our solar. I've gotta say, having solar has done something of the opposite to me. It's made it clear that the power you generate is not really yours; if you're grid-tied, the more you get into the minutia of what you make when you generate, what you're charged when you consume, grid interconnection fees, tiering, lack of grid sync when the grid is down, etc, the more it becomes clear that owning rooftop solar is NOT generating your own power for your own use, it's merely an arbitrage scheme where you're really trading your rooftop real estate for cheaper power.
Seems like a great deal to me. I get the benefits of solar and none of the cost or downside of energy storage.
I sometimes wonder if rooftop solar + fossil fuel generators is the future for electric micro grids in more remote areas. Probably cheaper than maintaining expensive distribution lines in fire prone areas.
Even with net metering and all you have is solar, it still does matter when you use grid power. California peak rates are 3 PM to midnight, and you’re not getting any offset when the sun is down and then you’re conscious about peak rates.
The calculus only changes when you have solar production + battery storage. Then you have freedom.
There is a shocking amount of ignorance of the actual functioning of the electric grid and where costs actually come from for non demand resources like solar and wind (and run of river hydro and a bunch of others) in this thread. Power grids require supply to equal demand at all times within a small margin of error or else the grid blacks out. Grid operators keep within the margin of error with ancillary services constantly ramping generators up and down by small amounts to keep supply equal to demand across the grid. The uncosted and huge cost of solar and wind is that they cannot provide ancillary services (until storage gets a lot better and cheaper, which is a long time away, likely decades) and they increase ancillary demand because enough ancillaries have to be available to cover wind cutouts or clouds rolling in. This cost increases exponentially as percent of power from non demand resources increases because you have to run the other generation increasingly at min gen just to be able to ramp them to Max gen if needed. This is no big deal when these resources are a couple percent of your grid but hugely costly as they stop being a rounding error in your generation profile. So yes, solar is way cheaper than most other gen to install right now but it causes an externality that isnt being priced correctly right now and that per unit externality increases as the grid gets more of these resources.
AC is easy, because it is needed when there is a lot of sun. The challenge is heating. Feeding to the grid during summer and buying back during winter does not solve any problem.
For non-heating use day/night cycles can be solved by batteries. For non-heating use over-provisioning to catch ambient light could even make it work during winter, no grid needed.
But for heating, over-provisioning to run a heat-pump on ambient light does not seem viable. Year-cycle storage is complex (e.g., hydrogen, maybe high-temperature to store heat, ...).
A solution can be collectors to create electricity which is then stored by a second system. An alternative might be collectors that don't produce electricity but something that can be stored directly.
Difficult choice to go all-in on PV for planned use of 25 years today when there might be a more storage-friendly solution available in 10 years.
Here in the Netherlands where we have relatively easy access to the ground and ability to drill, we are starting to make more use of ground temperature. With either narrow 50m deep installs to reach a place with a steady 12 degrees Celsius, or more top layer but wider installs. A heat pump is then used to exchange the heat of ground to the heat of the house. For both heating and hot running water.
Then an additional option is to cool the house in summer by extracting the heat from the house and pumping it into the ground to be extracted during winter.
This is interesting because, especially in combination with floor heating, this can heat a house on the solar generation in winter.
Sadly these systems are expensive to install after building the house. But it can be done, especially the less specialised wider top soil solutions.
This mirrors my experience. I was offgrid for over six years and we had enough solar panels and batteries to produce all the power we needed and then some (even in the Winter as this was in South Europe). But for heating we used wood. I suppose we could have run a 1-2kw heater for a few hours every night but it would have reduced the batteries life which were quite expensive.
> AC is easy, because it is needed when there is a lot of sun.
This isn't universally true and I think shows a lack of intuitive familiarity with climates that aren't North America or Europe.
Where I live the over night low will be 26c (79f). With high humidity that's a "RealFeel(r)" of 31c (88f).
Most people find that uncomfortable to sleep in, especially if they didn't grow up in it. Most people I know have their air conditioning on overnight.
There are plenty of places where night time temperatures, especially when combined with humidity, still result in air conditioning -- assuming the country is rich enough to afford it. Which increasingly many are.
Heck, today is overcast with no sun but it is still 33c with a "RealFeel" of 40c.
Heating (and AC) are not problems solved by pouring more energy in your home but with insulation.A passive house is a reality even for cold climate, and they don't need storage for cooling/heating. Then you are left with your appliance that have to run outside of production time, but this is rather small.
I'm from Spain, have panels and a bit of this mentality. The thing is the electric utility sells at market price (say 30 cents), but buys at incredible low prices (about 5 cents). That makes them a net earning of 25 cents for an energy they didn't invest a dime to produce, and in fact I have to pay to distribute (about 5€/month).
My target is to net zero, but never net negative (put more in the grid that I consume), because that would be working for the utility. If I'm selling too much, a unneeded oven pyrolisis or AC it is.
Pay me 80% of the market prices and I will contribute more to the grid. Also that I'm no hardcore hippie: I'm doing my part investing around 60K in PV, so I want my returns either as €€€ or in comfort, not in virtue. And I'm not taking ethical climate lessons from people who doesn't have any panel.
It's like "oh, you bought a Tesla, you should give rides to your neighbors that still run gas vehicles. But Uber keeps 80% of the earnings".
Because people buy things for themselves usually. E.g. they bought the solar system to give themselves power, not to benefit other people, so that it's had this weird side effect of abundance is something that they openly admit they can't process.
To be fair, you’d need really big backyard and a lot of work to feed an entire family year long with a balanced diet while having a sense of abundance.
Mh, after I've "gone solar" i felt a sense of abundance in some hours of many sunny days BUT I see from my "smart meter" (Home Assistant + Victron inverter + Carlo Giavazzi meter, to state another thing [1]) logs that I also need energy when the Sun NOT shine an as a result instead of sense of abundance I've developed a sense of "keep watching" to choose what to run or not depending on the Sun state...
Unfortunately I've realized how much is unfeasible living on renewables... I've realized that without damn real scalable, cheap and long lasting storage we can only spend money to made an almost zero-sum (in the best case) game. At MINIMUM we need storage to power TWO-THREE ENTIRE DAYS and enough peak power to recharge it in 3h. A thing that in most latitude/homes means something from the cost of a not so cheap car to the cost of a home alone, for ~10 years of usable life due to the most expensive part: the battery.
To really being able to live on renewable we need year-long storage, something that can power a home for six month, being recharged in the other six to have enough charge/discharge margin during an year. To be clear I'm NOT unhappy of my investment because it pay back in term of blackout protection (thanks to a small but capable enough to pass a night on essential services lithium storage) and in term of yearly amortization costs BUT, while for a mix of reasons (some definitively artificially made by some humans, acting as cancer of humanity) I suggest others to do the same I'm FAR LESS optimistic...
[1] that IoT development in the SOLE area where IoT is meaningful, useful for the user is utterly developed and crappy limited.
More like 40k financed over 7 years with a $500 payment. Except your electricity use goes into negative and you can recoup some of those costs. Meanwhile like the article said you start to use $400 worth a month and with batteries you end up fully self sufficient when the grid goes down.
Honestly on a tech salary it's a bit of a luxury but not much for the peace of mind of never having your power go out. Basically $120 more a month. And then when it's paid off it does become free.
How big do these arrays have to be to hit self-sustainability?
I bought a new build house in the UK a few years back which had solar panels pre-installed on the roof (IMO that should be a requirement for all new houses). It’s a 1kW array facing west so I’m far from experiencing the abundance this article describes.
a 1kw array is realistically going to provide 300-900watts. which in summer is going to get you about 6-9kwhr a day.
I have a 5.6kw array and a battery. It has provided 99.8% of our power since march. (only 60% of our power was from solar in january though.)
We've generated ~3 MwHr this year, with 1.5 net going to the grid.
We don't have a feed in tariff, so any power we generate and export is free to the supplier. This means that we put on the washing machine & dishwasher on during solar peak, so that we stop the power companies making as much money.
But. We have gas heating. even with external wall insulation we using about 500kwhr a month in febuary. (Im not sure that acutally all, as the smart meter has stopped reporting properly.)
The article missed one very critical element: depending on the tariffs it may be a net zero sum game for a consumer, but solar energy is super tricky grid wise. When clouds pass over the country, when it is night, when it is winter there is no abundance of energy in the grid. Winter could be baseline compensated by nuclear but the variations summer and winter beyond buffers have to be compensated by energy sources can startup very quickly. And that is mostly natural gas.
So while I can totally follow the article positiv argument (as a proud owner myself I experience the same sentiments), in the larger picture, that feeling only works in summer daylight and only if the grid is already on 100% renewables at the given time (which in parts of Europe we are).
Put all the other factors aside, the author at least ignored quite a few critical variables:
1. Decaying of the panels. I'm wondering if the panels can retain 50% of designed output after 7 years.
2. Maintenance. If the inverter go busted in 7 years, hopefully the warranty would be still valid by then. Also, the extra load panels put on roof was never factored when the house was built, it's not uncommon to see issues caused by that.
3. Variance of feed-in tariff. So if the tariff wasn't locked in, I'm pretty sure there would be surprises on how fast it can drop.
Considering the sun produces 1370 Watts per square meter (solar constant). I cannot imagine an average homeowner in Brooklyn having enough rooftop space to accomodate the number of panels required to power their home for 100%. Especially when taking heating / air conditioning into account.
I don't understand why so many people who care about greenhouse gases (and so love renewable energy sources) refuse to acknowledge that producing the equipment that generates "renewable" energy required massive energy investment (that came from fossil fuels).
And so there are two payback periods: one financial and the other environmental. This person extended their environmental payback period to achieve "abundance".
I have no problem with that, but the fact that it's considered "free" on the very same dimension that they originally sought to optimize--when it's clearly not free--baffles me.
[+] [-] Barrin92|3 years ago|reply
Simply put, if an increase in efficiency, ecologically in this case, leads to an increase in consumption then the end result isn't a decrease in energy usage but an increase. One of the reasons carbo-hydrogen consumption has barely fallen totally is because every time we make something more efficient we have the fantastic idea to use it for something other than substituting the old energy sources. Every solar panel put to use for something that isn't turning an old power plant off is slowing the energy transition. The people on HN who rightfully ask why our software is so slow despite our chips being so fast know Jevon's paradox by heart.
It's important to point out that this applies to the infrastructure needed for green energy itself, which is not green. Solar panels, batteries, concrete, steel, rare earths, the downside of that green energy the author blasts so abundantly through is some toxic mining pit in Africa.
[+] [-] anigbrowl|3 years ago|reply
This is a bullshit argument because all power generation has to be constructed. If you want to say that solar is especially bad compared to the construction and fuel of a coal or nuclear plant over its lifetime, have at it. But simply pointing out that deployment has an environmental cost isn't meaningful, it's just downerism.
[+] [-] MattPalmer1086|3 years ago|reply
It only says that technological efficiency improvements in the production of something creates additional demand for it, leading to an overall increase in usage of the thing.
Nothing was made more efficient. He is not using energy from coal or other fossil fuels, so his usage displaces that usage.
[+] [-] PeterisP|3 years ago|reply
IMHO this is an indication that the adjective "green" is too vague and contradictory that it's counterproductive to use it in current discussions.
Different types of "non-green" have very different properties, different types of pollution are not interchangeable and we have to be specific about which we're talking about.
If global warming is a serious crisis, then it implies that trading off some greenhouse gases for a toxic mining pit might be a good deal, a net win from the environmental perspective, as the environmental damage to these few mining locations are far outweighed by the decrease in environmental damage throughout the planet. The same applies for nuclear waste - their environmental issues must always be considered not in absolute risk, but in comparison to the environmental cost of the generation of an equivalent (immense) quantity of fossil fuel or the environmental production costs of the immense scale battery+solar equipment to replace gigawatts of nuclear power.
Anyone who actually wants to effectively advance environmental goals has to consider possible tradeoffs of one "not green" thing versus another, and be willing to accept compromises that trade off a small harm to reduce a much bigger one; and anyone who insists that anything with an environmental cost is taboo is effectively advocating for even greater harm to the environment.
[+] [-] jacquesm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epistasis|3 years ago|reply
We care about cold beer and hot showers, and only want them so cold and so hot respectively. Jevon's paradox does not apply to most consumption that we are trying to modify.
One place where Jevon's paradox really does apply is driving. Which is why we need a stronger movement to at least legalize planning that allows people to live without cars. Note that I'm not even saying we must force carlessness, simply make a careless life legal. Allow people to choose to build housing and businesses such that one doesn't have to use a car. Things like removing parking minimums, etc.
[+] [-] gwicks56|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bergenty|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badrabbit|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheLoafOfBread|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eastbound|3 years ago|reply
Then they invented NPM. And they don’t see a problem. Feels like we should reduce data centers by a factor of 7x if we removed NPM from Earth.
[+] [-] null_object|3 years ago|reply
It makes using solar attractive to the consumption-hungry among us, and presents it as a money-saving device: all of which will appeal to a completely new demographic than the usual environmentally-aware crowd.
[+] [-] XorNot|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|3 years ago|reply
In places with net metering, it doesn't matter when you use it.
In places (like CA, under NEM2.0), where you get credits proportional to when you generate, you're still better off charging your car at night because you're getting multiplier effect when you generate during peak hours and consume at off-peak hours.
Everyone says to buy a bigger system than you think you'll need because your consumption goes up slowly over time. We're a net consumer despite our solar. I've gotta say, having solar has done something of the opposite to me. It's made it clear that the power you generate is not really yours; if you're grid-tied, the more you get into the minutia of what you make when you generate, what you're charged when you consume, grid interconnection fees, tiering, lack of grid sync when the grid is down, etc, the more it becomes clear that owning rooftop solar is NOT generating your own power for your own use, it's merely an arbitrage scheme where you're really trading your rooftop real estate for cheaper power.
[+] [-] bushbaba|3 years ago|reply
I sometimes wonder if rooftop solar + fossil fuel generators is the future for electric micro grids in more remote areas. Probably cheaper than maintaining expensive distribution lines in fire prone areas.
[+] [-] hbarka|3 years ago|reply
The calculus only changes when you have solar production + battery storage. Then you have freedom.
[+] [-] tshaddox|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snapplebobapple|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] someweirdperson|3 years ago|reply
For non-heating use day/night cycles can be solved by batteries. For non-heating use over-provisioning to catch ambient light could even make it work during winter, no grid needed.
But for heating, over-provisioning to run a heat-pump on ambient light does not seem viable. Year-cycle storage is complex (e.g., hydrogen, maybe high-temperature to store heat, ...).
A solution can be collectors to create electricity which is then stored by a second system. An alternative might be collectors that don't produce electricity but something that can be stored directly.
Difficult choice to go all-in on PV for planned use of 25 years today when there might be a more storage-friendly solution available in 10 years.
[+] [-] spockz|3 years ago|reply
Then an additional option is to cool the house in summer by extracting the heat from the house and pumping it into the ground to be extracted during winter.
This is interesting because, especially in combination with floor heating, this can heat a house on the solar generation in winter.
Sadly these systems are expensive to install after building the house. But it can be done, especially the less specialised wider top soil solutions.
[+] [-] cfn|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freddie_mercury|3 years ago|reply
This isn't universally true and I think shows a lack of intuitive familiarity with climates that aren't North America or Europe.
Where I live the over night low will be 26c (79f). With high humidity that's a "RealFeel(r)" of 31c (88f).
Most people find that uncomfortable to sleep in, especially if they didn't grow up in it. Most people I know have their air conditioning on overnight.
There are plenty of places where night time temperatures, especially when combined with humidity, still result in air conditioning -- assuming the country is rich enough to afford it. Which increasingly many are.
Heck, today is overcast with no sun but it is still 33c with a "RealFeel" of 40c.
[+] [-] mahkeiro|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] freemint|3 years ago|reply
It is summer or spring all year around. The problem is your grid it so small.
[+] [-] HyperSane|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] moepstar|3 years ago|reply
Every kWh fed back into the grid is a kWh that is displacing energy generated by coal, gas, nuclear, ....
[+] [-] otherme123|3 years ago|reply
My target is to net zero, but never net negative (put more in the grid that I consume), because that would be working for the utility. If I'm selling too much, a unneeded oven pyrolisis or AC it is.
Pay me 80% of the market prices and I will contribute more to the grid. Also that I'm no hardcore hippie: I'm doing my part investing around 60K in PV, so I want my returns either as €€€ or in comfort, not in virtue. And I'm not taking ethical climate lessons from people who doesn't have any panel.
It's like "oh, you bought a Tesla, you should give rides to your neighbors that still run gas vehicles. But Uber keeps 80% of the earnings".
[+] [-] hammyhavoc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hosh|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjerem|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kkfx|3 years ago|reply
Unfortunately I've realized how much is unfeasible living on renewables... I've realized that without damn real scalable, cheap and long lasting storage we can only spend money to made an almost zero-sum (in the best case) game. At MINIMUM we need storage to power TWO-THREE ENTIRE DAYS and enough peak power to recharge it in 3h. A thing that in most latitude/homes means something from the cost of a not so cheap car to the cost of a home alone, for ~10 years of usable life due to the most expensive part: the battery.
To really being able to live on renewable we need year-long storage, something that can power a home for six month, being recharged in the other six to have enough charge/discharge margin during an year. To be clear I'm NOT unhappy of my investment because it pay back in term of blackout protection (thanks to a small but capable enough to pass a night on essential services lithium storage) and in term of yearly amortization costs BUT, while for a mix of reasons (some definitively artificially made by some humans, acting as cancer of humanity) I suggest others to do the same I'm FAR LESS optimistic...
[1] that IoT development in the SOLE area where IoT is meaningful, useful for the user is utterly developed and crappy limited.
[+] [-] inciampati|3 years ago|reply
Soon, the energy cost of the panels should get low enough that it really is us tapping into abundance...
[+] [-] hparadiz|3 years ago|reply
Honestly on a tech salary it's a bit of a luxury but not much for the peace of mind of never having your power go out. Basically $120 more a month. And then when it's paid off it does become free.
If you own a home it's really a no brainer.
[+] [-] zeckalpha|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spockz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdawson|3 years ago|reply
I bought a new build house in the UK a few years back which had solar panels pre-installed on the roof (IMO that should be a requirement for all new houses). It’s a 1kW array facing west so I’m far from experiencing the abundance this article describes.
[+] [-] KaiserPro|3 years ago|reply
I have a 5.6kw array and a battery. It has provided 99.8% of our power since march. (only 60% of our power was from solar in january though.)
We've generated ~3 MwHr this year, with 1.5 net going to the grid.
We don't have a feed in tariff, so any power we generate and export is free to the supplier. This means that we put on the washing machine & dishwasher on during solar peak, so that we stop the power companies making as much money.
But. We have gas heating. even with external wall insulation we using about 500kwhr a month in febuary. (Im not sure that acutally all, as the smart meter has stopped reporting properly.)
[+] [-] mirekrusin|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oaiey|3 years ago|reply
So while I can totally follow the article positiv argument (as a proud owner myself I experience the same sentiments), in the larger picture, that feeling only works in summer daylight and only if the grid is already on 100% renewables at the given time (which in parts of Europe we are).
[+] [-] freemint|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrjin|3 years ago|reply
1. Decaying of the panels. I'm wondering if the panels can retain 50% of designed output after 7 years.
2. Maintenance. If the inverter go busted in 7 years, hopefully the warranty would be still valid by then. Also, the extra load panels put on roof was never factored when the house was built, it's not uncommon to see issues caused by that.
3. Variance of feed-in tariff. So if the tariff wasn't locked in, I'm pretty sure there would be surprises on how fast it can drop.
[+] [-] sercand|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RickJWagner|3 years ago|reply
I tend to vote Republican, and I've sold my car. I have Democrat friends that drive trucks and big motorcycles purely for pleasure.
So tired of the political nagging and innuendo in every little thing. It's probably going to get worse as November draws closer.
[+] [-] bartimus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biren34|3 years ago|reply
And so there are two payback periods: one financial and the other environmental. This person extended their environmental payback period to achieve "abundance".
I have no problem with that, but the fact that it's considered "free" on the very same dimension that they originally sought to optimize--when it's clearly not free--baffles me.
[+] [-] bruce343434|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blablabla123|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|3 years ago|reply
The “abundance” perspective is deceptive, people seem to simply refuse to accept a reduction in consumption.
[+] [-] Glench|3 years ago|reply