Wow, OK simple math lesson for you: I can reduce my per year cost by $X, but I need to spend $Y to install some technology to enable the savings. If $Y < $X *

Wow, OK simple math lesson for you: I can reduce my per year cost by $X, but I need to spend $Y to install some technology to enable the savings. If $Y < $X * N (where N is the number of years that tech will last), then you are saving money. Now lets say the cost of putting in those trash cans is $Y1 with a wired connection. $Y1 includes tearing up the street to run power cables. That makes $Y1 not meet the inequality. No savings happen. But with solar powered trash cans, which cost $Y2 to install, and $Y2 meets the inequality, then the solar power is enabling the savings. That is the difference. In another post you already mention that you understand why the savings occur - fewer trips because of logistical planning from communications, plus fewer trips because compaction allows more trash per bin. This makes me wonder if you are just being disingenuous with your second paragraph. Or maybe you just don't understand that less time and fuel means less money spent. The fact that you and the GP are fixating on solar being off-grid to provide savings doesn't even make sense as the article doesn't claim that to be the case.