Also, I wanted to mention that bit about the turbine. Nope, sorry, you cannot have one. Why? Because it will kill birds, make too much noise, and block the ocean views. New England is prime oceanic real-estate for a windfarm, but nobody wants it here because it will "destroy their view of the ocean". NIMBY shit to a T. Oh, and it will kill seabirds. You cannot have kinetic wave motion generators in the ocean either, because it will kill "all the fishes and whales". You cannot have solar because it will take up too much land, which we need for the precious earthland creatures to graze and fart on. So everyone wants an alternative energy source, but every alternative has too many drawbacks that their vanity cannot accept, to save this planet. They say this as they suck their Evian water from petro-chemically produced disposable water bottles that they simply toss into the trash bin, instead of the recycle bin. And they complain about it on their petro-chemically-produced smartphones, using energy to recharge them from the very fossil fuels they shun which also produced their make-up, cheep shoes and containers they re-heat their microwave dinners in, which come in petro-chemically produced plastic containers. And THAT is just the tip of the iceberg. This world is doomed because the people in it, doom it for the dumbest vain reasons. Me, me, me, now, now now. It is disgusting. We need to get back to the 1980s, when people were smart and knew how to handle themselves and the world, not run to mommy and daddy about shit they did not understand. No phones, no Internet, just their own minds and judgment, with a respect for others.
Because solar and geothermal will charge my Tesla with no carbon footprint but won't do shit for your Camry. I can recommend some good community colleges for you. TSLA up to 239 AH. #win
*sighs* There is no such thing as a zero-carbon footprint. It simply is not possible on the earth, unless fusion becomes a real thing. Otherwise, the best you can ever achieve is an equal energy-point-to-energy-point transfer. Zero-sum game. Sound familiar? I didn't need a community-college degree for that. I learned it when I last stayed in a Holiday Inn Express, and saw this on the television tube...
I have a degree in PHYS from UChicago at 19 and you are trading one lots. I just made $420K in TSLA AHs (well, $84K at 1 & 20).
If you have a degree in Physics, why are you trading, rather than working your scientific career? You have a degree, and so there it is. You have it. You also have money, so you could make $420K on TSLA. No wonder you didn't stick with a career in physics. Why bother when you can take your cash and make a fuckton. IIRC, you have something like 20 million dollars to back up your trade? Not bad, you made 2 percent today on your capital. If I told you I made 8% on my trade today, would you believe me? I mean, you made 2%, but I made 8%. So who "won"? NOBODY WON! We both made money. Stop with the dick-wagging thing, it is unbecoming.
Solar is carbon-negative. Not in the manufacture but in power-generation. I sell power back to the grid in the Summer bc I don't have conventional central-air or window units. The result is carbon-negativity in the Summer months as the electricity that the photovoltaics generate is a surplus offered to other NV Energy customers. My knowledge of the industry is that of a layman, same as yours, so HTF can you be so wrong? Perhaps that's why you're trading one lots. Gotta run.
Solar can be carbon neutral once it offsets the manufacturing carbon cost. Reducing the load on the grid isn't really carbon negative though. Sure you're reducing the carbon output of the plant, but it's not sinking the carbon in the atmosphere (true carbon negative). You're artificially bumping the grid efficiency if you will. Now if you've reforested woodlands in your property, and they through solar energy and photosynthesis sink carbon, than yeah, you can claim carbon negative.
Hedge Funds like to hire people with a physics degree. You can certainly apply the knowledge of motion and gravity to the stock market.
No. The result is less output at the plant equal to the solar surplus. Carbon capture is not required to make the net effect negative. Less carbon/kWh.
If he made a traditional car then he would be admitting that electric cars were a failure. It would suggest that he has lost confidence in the electric cars he currently makes. He entered into a side business last year making surf boards and flame throwers. Perhaps he should take some of his experience with lithium batteries and create a separate division for home products that have become so popular......cordless drills, cordless lawn mowers, chainsaws, leaf blowers etc.... If he designed an efficient wind turbine, especially one that was easy to mount and more quiet than current models; it would be quite popular. Wind turbines are the most expensive alternative for home use. It would complete his catalog for alternative energy......solar shingles, solar panels, energy storage (Powerwall) and turbines would be a good fit. There is no single solution, but if you had an efficient solar system, a small wind turbine and storage batteries, you would be free of the grid. These options are still much more $$$ than your local electric company. But, they are getting cheaper and more efficient every year. I believe that in twenty years our homes will be much more energy efficient than they are now with better insulation, better windows and an independent energy source.....solar or wind......with a storage device. We'll get there.... https://www.inverse.com/article/551...-says-version-3-production-will-speed-up-soon https://www.tesla.com/powerwall I am confident that these are not cost effective for home use, but you have to start somewhere........ https://news.energysage.com/solar-panel-windows-solar-blinds/ https://www.livescience.com/59683-windows-double-as-solar-panels.html