It's the energy equivalent of holding out for next gen cpu's.
A nice (unpublished?) study supporting the complementary effect of wind and solar power for California concludes that these source of power are complementary [4], but makes an important simplifying assumption that will have to be investigated before we can conclude that solar and wind really are complements. It assumes that each day of a month can be approximated by the average day of the month.
A study that looks at fine grained (i.e. daily) variations in output concludes (among other things) [5] that
> A Wind and solar energy were observed to be highly complementary on an annual basis, but only slightly complementary on a daily basis.
I'm not an expert in this area, but it may be that within Texas specifically that wind is currently viewed as the easiest way to add renewable energy production and that we can expect the benefits from solar's greater or lesser complementary production to come along in the future.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-ar...
[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148113... and http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/remea/assessing-complementarity-...
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261172609_PV_and_Wi...
[4] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Comb...
[5] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.4440030202/abs...
I tried to get solar on our house ~3 years ago. The roof is angled a few degrees too far north so we didn't qualify for any federal, state, or local subsidies or tax credits. I'd love to do it but the numbers don't work out that way.
I actually find it surprising that your utility finds that to be a deal breaker as it would only limit your ability to generate electricity by a few percent per skewed degree.
Home ownership is the only practical way in which the general public can access leveraged asset price inflation. There has to be big transformation in the economy before home ownership is seen as a cost centre rather than the most profitable investment most people will ever make.
Sounds like the system is working exactly as intended to me.
I'm kind of curious what you were doing to the drivers since it's dog eat dog enough out there that drivers will pretty much take any fare that's semi-reasonable and they don't think they're going to die.
I don’t use Uber anymore, so it’s less of a personal issue and more of an overreaching policy issue as Uber attempts (poorly) to supplant public transit and personal vehicles with their product.
My vision for the future is that the combination of dropping solar costs, the ability to work remotely, and the high cost of home ownership will open up new areas of land for communities to develop where it was not feasible before.
Combined with other trends like tiny homes, 'van dwelling', etc, it seems to make sense: people want to live high quality lifestyles without the high cost.
I picked up 5 acres in the california desert for a few thousand dollars, I lived there in a trailer for a while and learned a lot - I'm convinced it will become more popular as people start to realize it's doable.
- some states have reduced or removed subsidies to home owners for new solar installations
- solar installations are expensive and take years to pay themselves back (and ultimately become a net gain); but homeowners are staying in one home for shorter periods than in the past, making long-term planning less attractive
- some utilities have pressured local governments to block or make difficult new solar installations because of (real or perceived) problems with pushing a lot of power back into the grid from the endpoints (homes)
- political misinformation campaigns have convinced some simple folk that solar is bad (or is un-patriotic since some regions, such as Texas, are so deeply connected to oil and gas)
How much of a role these other factors have played is up for debate, but I think it's rather disingenuous of Reuters to not even mention some of these.