5 ms·

> Kinda sad situation with the alternative energy source. I find it kind of sad that the only way people will consider alternative energy sources is if it's si

• escherize 11y ago
  You should cheer up. Rational people (like gp) only care about what's around them. Why should he waste money on solar instead of sending it to charity, etc?
  • Brakenshire 11y ago
    The Rational Man is a economic construct which is dubious as an abstract concept for building economic models, and irrelevant as a justification for individual behaviour. If the limit of morality is the law and the market, we might all just as well give up now.
    • oldmanjay 11y ago
      Apologies for this comment. I dashed off about 30% of my thoughts (the shittiest 30%) and this isn't really what I was trying to express. I'll leave it here to remind myself to think more. ----- If the most convincing case you can make for your morals is "you should because I say so" then you can't be too surprised when it's not 100% convincing to people.
      • Brakenshire 11y ago
        > If the most convincing case you can make for your morals is "you should because I say so" then you can't be too surprised when it's not 100% convincing to people. Yeah, there are all sorts of questions you can discuss about how your values inform the way you spend money above and beyond what's necessary, whether it's about luxury, convenience, status, or how you would want to spend charitable money. What annoyed me was the raising up of an observation ('people don't care about anything beyond their surroundings') into something which is glibly justified because it is Rational. I would say that's a "you should because I say so", or at best a "you should because it is" argument for morality. Edit: Ah, I see your edit, consider the above part of the fossilized argument then!
  • hrnnnnnn 11y ago
    Relevant SMBC: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2095 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2095
• mikeash 11y ago
  What I find sad is that we allow dirty, polluting energy sources to remain artificially cheap by not requiring them to pay the costs of their pollution. If the cost of coal-fired electricity included all the costs from the pollution it emits, alternative energy would look a lot more attractive, and rational economic actors would start switching over a lot faster.
• Shivetya 11y ago
  who would build their own coal/oil/gas power system at home? I would not mind seeing more solar but why is the onus put on the individual home owner? the loss of efficiency alone by having so many individual and separate setups let alone the maintenance nightmare makes me wonder, who thought this was a good idea? It might become one when the systems become plug and play, something you can go down to your local big box construction store and buy. just as with wind, coal, and other forms of power generation, solar is far more suited to where it can be deployed in large configurations. The maintenance savings alone make it sensible. The ease of integrating back into the grid make it more sensible. but solar as an individual home owner with its current roi and complexity? I guess if you need a visual feel good statement.
  • blacksmith_tb 11y ago
    Everything has maintenance costs, solar is likely to be lower than most. I have a 4.8kWh PV system on my roof, and though it's only been up there 2.5yr, it has required no maintenance whatsoever (I bought my home with it, so the upfront costs were rolled into total). It provides far more power than I need to heat and cool, run all my appliances, water heater, etc. - and that's in the cool and cloudy Pacific NW. Now, I am in a certified Passivhaus...