At the moment, non-solar customers are effectively subsidising grid use by solar customers
I don't follow that. The solar customers do pay for their grid use, don't they? Also, they supply power into the grid from their own investment, and at a massively discounted rate. How are they being subsidized? Surely it's the other way around?
That was my thinking, and I'm making no criticism of such a withdrawal, which seems more than understandable.
With the way projections of dropping cost are going, it looks to me like waiting is the way to go. A strong uptake of domestic solar will drive down domestic power costs, I'd think. And it's not like you're being a carbon using bastard in leveraging off that - you're taking the reverse grid power of other solar installations with excess capacity.
It's still righteous to have, though. There's plenty of reasons to get it that aren't just about saving money. It's a lot like buying an electric car. The cost justification is now there...just. But the idea of being a part of bringing the future on has appeal all on its own. My comment above is targeted only at the biggest stallmeisters, like myself.
Re: PV vs water heating, my economics is affected by being in a modern house that's easy to heat, but not so easy to cool. The next real electricity bill saver will be a heat pump, since it will also act as an air conditioner in summer, bringing blessed relief. That chews power, but fortunately, at a time when the cause of the problem can also be the cure. Also, I'm kind of over having a water cylinder at all. It seems like a really old fashioned idea.
That was an extremely welcome column by Toby at the time. I was feeling pretty bummed out by what the internet I mostly use had to offer. It's an issue I feel strongly about but have lost all interest in discussing with men, and they seemed to be the only ones talking, with a few exceptions. But maybe I just don't know where to look.
It's a not very subtle concern troll, I think. Pretty much stupid to suggest Barry forget about it, and weird to expect her to do his bidding when ACT still has its own parliamentary figure.
There was no need for Cunliffe to be “Embarrassed” to be a man
That wasn't really what I was saying. I don't think I'm helping here. Might just drop it, this thread's meant to mostly be about education.
I believe Ben was talking about the discussion in other forums than this one. More heat than light.
Yes, and apologies to Stephen and anyone else for not making that clear. I'm entirely referring to other forums, and not in any way suggesting it should not happen here.
What discussion? And do you get it?
I mean debate around whether Cunliffe made some kind of gaffe in amidst a whole lot of other useful messages. I don't want to have that in a room entirely empty of any women.
Women 'liked' my statement and subsequent comments, but the 'debate' was had by men. :(
Yes, the MRAs are out in force, standing up for the rights of men in much the same way that the police are all over standing up for the cop caught on video repeatedly punching a black woman in the head while she lies on the ground. It's all about what level of provocation and threat she must have offered.
Is it even worth participating in these discussions? There's a level of people just not getting it that's so profound it makes it seem pointless.
Sorry about a little bit of the language, guys.
Completely forgot to say no worries and an apology like that shows a lot of class. I definitely agree that some cyclists are jerks. But I have felt a whole lot less bitter towards lycra cyclists in the last year or so, somehow their getting in the way just melted back into the perspective of all the other things that cause trouble on the road, on which list they came up somewhere around 50th place. Even a big bolshy pack hogging the whole road are only going to be in the way for less time than a whole light phase, and all they mean is you have to slow down to like 35km/h for that whole time!! The horror!
Maybe I'm mellowing as I age.