Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheFrontierzman t1_iyrt99d wrote

This sub has turned into an aggregation of bs clickbate articles equivalent to, "In 2030, we'll be flying to work via our own jetpacks."

143

LastofU509 t1_iyrwx97 wrote

electric jetpacks yo. sign up today to be among the first ones get yours in Q1 2030!!! yo!

20

Storyteller-Hero t1_iyry6ns wrote

Homemade jetpacks actually exist in real life though. People have been tinkering with them for years now.

5

Cr4zko t1_iyu5mh1 wrote

You're right. But we do have Jetpack prototypes and we have had them for years so at least we're in the future in that regard.

4

DragoonXNucleon t1_iyrxq0p wrote

Yea this headline is horseshit in so many ways. First solar is always cheaper... because its free. The cost is upfront vs gas which is both upfront and fuel based. Therefore its intellectually bankrupt to compare cost of generation if you don't include equipment cost.

Second, if solar was cheaper, gas prices will fall, keeping the two in rough equilibrium. Some places can extract gas as cheaply as 20$ a barrel so solar per kw and gas per kw will peg to each other as mpre goes electric.

1

reboot_the_world t1_iys4ka7 wrote

>Yea this headline is horseshit in so many ways. First solar is always cheaper... because its free.

I never get "solar is free" talks. It is only free if you ignore everything that is needed to use it. If you think like this, gas and oil is also free, because they are only condensed energy from the sun.

Back to reality. If you have PV on your roof, your cost per kWh is near 10 cent in northern germany . If you have PV storage, your cost is near 28 cent per KW out of your storage. This is not free.
The cost for gas before the war was 5,3 cent per kWh. Thanks to the war, we are now up to 16,8 cent.

4

Roadrunner571 t1_iyv4g7c wrote

But 10ct/kWh is already really cheap compared to getting energy from the grid. Even 28ct/kWh is quite a competitive price.

2

reboot_the_world t1_iyv4p9f wrote

Yes, i wrote that PV is an good investment, but it is not free. The 28ct/kWh was not really competitive price before the war. Now, it is.

1

Roadrunner571 t1_iyv5t4d wrote

But we already paid >28ct/kWh before the war. And with PV storage, you are nearly immune to price hikes.

2

reboot_the_world t1_iyv6ffk wrote

I paid 14ct/kWh before the war, thanks to having a combined heat and power plant and i have an old gas contract that guarantees me a gas price of 5,3 cent/kWh till the end of 2023. I am not sure what i will pay then since i will have solar and pv on my roof till then.

1

Surur t1_iysjsiq wrote

Explain that to me like I am 5 years old.

You will need electricity in any case, so you have a fixed cost of say 3000 euro a year.

You buy 9000 euro of solar + battery and now you pay nothing per year (in theory).

In 3 years your system had paid itself back, and for the next 7 years your battery lasts, your electricity is without any additional cost, ie free.

Why is it not free?

The only reason I can think of is that you could have invested 9000 euro, but then you would still have spend 30,000 over 10 years, and you 9000 is unlikely to turn into 30,000 over 10 years.

0

reboot_the_world t1_iysnj8k wrote

>Explain that to me like I am 5 years old.
>
>You will need electricity in any case, so you have a fixed cost of say 3000 euro a year.
>
>You buy 9000 euro of solar + battery and now you pay nothing per year (in theory).
>
>In 3 years your system had paid itself back, and for the next 7 years your battery lasts, your electricity is without any additional cost, ie free.
>
>Why is it not free?

The 10 cent per kWh for photovoltaic and 28 cent per kWh for energy from storage is the cost over the lifetime of the system. Many things in your PV system will degrade. Mainly your storage and your inverter. But also your PV modules. In 25 years your modules degraded and new modules are much better. It will be more economical to change them.

When somebody buys an oil tank and oil for 9000 euro, nobody will think that he will then get his house warm for free thanks to not having a yearly energy bill. Everybody understand, that some day, he must buy new oil. This is exactly the same with an pv system, but you don't need to buy oil but inverters, storage and modules over and over again. Why is this so hard to understand? There is no free lunch.

6

SatanLifeProTips t1_iyspmti wrote

The WARRANTY on modern PV panels is 25 years. The projected lifespan of those panels is closer to 50 years. You’ll probably be replacing the inverters every 20 years. Longer if modern inverters use better quality caps.

The panels may drop in production a little bit. You’ll get 80% or the original capacity after a 3-4 decades. So size the system a little bigger than you need.

Batteries are also dropping in price rapidly so that is a tough one to judge. Modern LFP batteries are rated for 4000+ cycles. Sodium ion just became commercially available at $100/kWh and 4500 cycle rating. If you design your battery to only use half of it’s capacity any day those are 20-25 year batteries. They are claiming the gen 2 sodium batteries may hit 10,000 cycles at $50-$75/kWh within 3-4 years. Those will be 30 year batteries by the sounds of it.

1

reboot_the_world t1_iyss7lq wrote

>So size the system a little bigger than you need.

How do you do this, if you already used your whole roof?

Like i told you, the prime cost in northern germany for PV are around 12cent where i live. This was before the war. Now it should be around 15 cent.

Here is a study from one of THE research institutes in germany (sorry, only in german): https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien/studie-stromgestehungskosten-erneuerbare-energien.html

3

SatanLifeProTips t1_iyt1g2e wrote

Invest in energy efficiency if you are out of roof space. You can spend money on anything from better appliances to insulation to reduce consumption.

Or simply rely on your grid tie to make up the surplus. If you only meet 80% of your energy needs…. Well that is fine. You reduced your power bill by 80%. Stop worrying about 100% solutions.

As for expensive prices right now, ever hear about the chip shortage? China fucked up hard between covid lockdowns and the complete collapse of their power grid this year. The answer is patience, grasshopper. We’ll get back into a PV equipment price falling price cycle quickly enough. EVERYTHING is overpriced and expensive right now. All the forecasts are for the chip market to shift from famine to feast (glut) within 6-18 months. It is a 3+ year cycle for industry to ramp up and we are over half way there.

You’ll also probably see all sorts of rebate programs come and go. The governments of the world are offering all sorts of subsidies. Milk one.

You can also put a PV system on your garage, shed or even in the yard. We have a 3kW system on the old bus that we use as our RV and I am wiring a new breakout plug in my shop so that when the bus is plugged into shore power it will heat and cool my shop.

−2

Surur t1_iysoxss wrote

Amortising the cost over the lifetime of the solar kind of ignores the concept of payback time, doesn't it, which is much more important for home users.

−1

reboot_the_world t1_iyspsrg wrote

Are we having a conversation about "solar is free" or about "solar is a good investment"? Thanks to the war, our energy cost rose from 28 cent per kWh to 45 to 60 cent per kWh form an energy supplier. Having photovoltaic on the roof is an awesome investment.

3

Surur t1_iysr8p9 wrote

No, I dont think you understand the consumer viewpoint.

Because you have to make an upfront payment, and also because you cant opt out of electricity bills, getting solar is not just like switching to a cheaper electricity provider which sells energy at 28c per kwh.

Consumers have to decide if the upfront investment is worthwhile which is where the payback period comes in.

And obviously, after something is paid back, it's free afterwards.

−2

reboot_the_world t1_iysvmf8 wrote

You mean the consumer that has no clue about economics?

You don't live for free in your own home. You need to invest in the preservation of it, or you have no house after a while. The same with photovoltaic. The components of your pv system have a finite lifetime. It will break down if you not renew parts of it all the time.

Here is a quote of a study from the fraunhofer institute from germany: In 2040, the electricity production costs are forecast to be between 3.58 and 6.77 cents/kWh for small PV roof systems and between 1.92 and 3.51 cents/kWh for ground-mounted systems. From 2024, the electricity generation costs of all PV systems (without battery storage) will be less than 10 cents/kWh. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien/studie-stromgestehungskosten-erneuerbare-energien.html

Quote: 'Fraunhofer Society for the Advancement of Applied Research' is a German research organization with 76 institutes spread throughout Germany, each focusing on different fields of applied science (as opposed to the Max Planck Society, which works primarily on basic science). With some 29,000 employees, mainly scientists and engineers, and with an annual research budget of about €2.8 billion, it is the biggest organization for applied research and development services in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society

But i am sure that they only need to talk to you and you can convince them, that pv energy is for free after a short time. Sorry, but you are wrong.

5

Surur t1_iysw1lt wrote

I dont think you understand - its just another way of looking at the same thing, and one which makes a lot more sense.

But you don't seem to understand - pity.

You probably do not understand why people are so eager to install solar despite the costs actually going up this year, but let me explain - its because the payback period has reduced.

Like I said, pity.

0

reboot_the_world t1_iysxp56 wrote

I gave you an example. If you have an big oil tank and fill it full, you pay many years nearly nothing till it is empty you and you need to fill it again. It is totally stupid to say you have free energy, only because you paid the cost upfront and than many years nearly nothing.

This is the same for solar. You pay the cost upfront and then many years nearly nothing and than you pay again a big bunch of money to renew the parts of your system. Yes, like when you pay upfront to fill a big oil tank, you can think a few years, you get your energy for free, thanks to not getting a bill for a few years. But it is dead wrong.Hint: I have pv on my roof and i am not able to get drunk enough to think one second that i get the energy for free. Maybe i am not the right consumer, or maybe i have reality on my site?
The right thinking is, that you have energy cheaper than your neighbor without pv.

3

Surur t1_iysyypk wrote

> I gave you an example. If you have an big oil tank and fill it full, you pay many years nearly nothing till it is empty you and you need to fill it again.

That is a silly example, isn't it. Again, you are ignoring the payback period. You paid for your fuel ahead of time.

If you buy 2000L of fuel oil ahead of time and use it over a year, there is no payback period - it costs exactly the same as if you bought it month to month.

It's more like buying a hacked satellite dish and getting free TV.

You are investing in the capability, not the fuel.

0

reboot_the_world t1_iyt1vom wrote

If your bought the oil for 2000 Euro and thanks to the energy crisis, it cost now 10.000 Euro, you also save money.

But i understand now what you mean. You are right, it is a different view on the same thing.

2

HardCounter t1_iysdu0b wrote

You're forgetting a key component: government. Taxes and regulation. You are imagining a free market world where the market decides and are forgetting that the government plays favorites. There are no taxes on sunlight and the government can't charge you to hell and back for it just yet. The reason gas is so expensive now is because of the government.

This headline could very well be true by 2030 even with equipment costs if they just keep raising the taxes on gas. I definitely see the EU installing electric monitors to determine how much energy was harnessed via solar panels and taxing you on that, though.

0

SatanLifeProTips t1_iysq18d wrote

Carbon taxes are also a thing now. Because the atmosphere is not a free garbage can.

We also pay the disposal cost of those PV panels when we buy them so that the end if life is already taken care if.

I could not see a PV energy tax happening. People would lose their shit. Everyone would bypass the meters. We need to meter grid power so that was easy. Metering home generation would be a logistical nightmare.

6

HardCounter t1_iysyrfc wrote

> I could not see a PV energy tax happening. People would lose their shit.

If only that were true. They'd do it incrementally so each step seems reasonable until 'surprise' there's a sudden tax with all the infrastructure in place to monitor it. They'll probably start by saying it's for tracking purposes only so they can see how effective panels are at mitigating costs and snowball from there.

Then suddenly oh my, there's a cost for using those monitors. Then oh my, in order to cover the environmental costs of making them there needs to be a tax. Then oh my, here's a tax 'cuz fuck you that's why, what's 1 cent per kwh? It's nothing, drop in the bucket. Oh my, gas taxes used to cover roads but now everyone is EV so we have to tax your energy.

Just going to boil that frog.

1

SatanLifeProTips t1_iyuf1ew wrote

It’s one thing tracking centralized systems. Oil gas water. All metered. Stand alone solar? It’s actually difficult and expensive to develop a monitored metering system that works across a vast spectrum of different custom systems that are all different? Not an easy task at all.

2

HardCounter t1_iyv3t6m wrote

It's really easy. Force a centralized entry point into the system, a single monitor. Electricity does that already and anything attached to the grid must go through that monitor. That portion is already in place.

1

jadrad t1_iyubmsr wrote

You’re forgetting a key component: the global oil and gas cartel. We literally had Saudi and Russia coming to a deal to cut millions of barrels of oil per day to blow up the price at the pump, and Russia disabling and bombing its own gas pipeline to create shortages to keep the global price of gas high.

−1

ovirt001 t1_iyykyqc wrote

Turned into? It has been that way for awhile.

1

springlord t1_iys4d2w wrote

Restate it "gas will be 10 times more expensive than solar" and post it on r/oddlyterrifying, then I guess I'll have to agree all the way.

30

Looney_Tunes_99 t1_iyrkexy wrote

Not a chance, the cost of materials will be so high by then. We are heading for a shortage of all raw materials for renewables unfortunately.

29

DragoonXNucleon t1_iys0j5a wrote

There isn't a shortage for wind or hydro or nuclear. Its really just a solar and battery problem but industrial scale solar doesn't use a lot of batteries.

12

[deleted] t1_iysf0t4 wrote

[deleted]

2

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_iysttq7 wrote

Or you need industry that basically turns electricity to profit and can adjust it's peak to whenever cheap power is available. There are definitely industrial processes that can be adjusted to take advantage of unpredictable oversupply that renewables create.

8

DragoonXNucleon t1_iyz3cuc wrote

Industrial solar doesn't use batteries. For storing the size of energy necessary at industrial scale, it's massively impractical and expensive. Industrial energy storage is done largely using pumps and water. Pump water up-hill with overflow energy, let it generate hydro downhill during energy demand.

1

superioso t1_iys2rj8 wrote

On longer time scales if prices get higher then more companies enter the market to supply products.

It's only short term that prices rise massively, like due to unexpected issues from covid, staff shortages etc.

7

International-Map-44 t1_iyspw71 wrote

If the cause of the high prices is due to scarcity of a material, having more companies in there will not decrease the price - quite the opposite actually.

0

GenderBender3000 t1_iytuyga wrote

Not sure why you’re being downvoted. People are trying to argue supply and demand with supply and demand. If the prices are high for the end product, more companies get into the market to try and make some money. This means more demand for the raw materials which, when there is limited availability of the raw material, increases their price, which increases the cost to manufacture, which increases the end product cost. It will be competition for the raw materials, not competition for your business.

2

grundar t1_iyuagjb wrote

> Not sure why you’re being downvoted.

If you're asking in good faith, it's because so far neither of you have backed up the assumption that increased demand for raw materials won't lead to increased supply of them.

Silicon (for solar) isn't rare.
Lithium (for batteries) isn't rare.

> If the prices are high for the end product, more companies get into the market to try and make some money.

Yes, and why does this not apply when the end product is "silicon" and the market is "mining"?

Maybe there are significant restrictions there, but that's not something you can expect people to take on faith.

4

IamChuckleseu t1_iyuwl37 wrote

Because while you use great logic with "if there is bigger demand for batteries there will be more companies making batteries", you completely fail to apply this exact same logic to mining lithium to increase supply and increased demand to it.

2

orrk256 t1_iyw0x7e wrote

And once it is a competition for the material the profit goes down and the excess companies leave the market, and it gets dominated by the most efficient, leaving the most efficient companies to once again try and offer the lowest cost product that now has a much higher bar for entry into said market because of the inherent advantage created by being able to make it cheaper...

At least finish your theoretical model

1

superioso t1_iyw7mnx wrote

Supply and demand works both ways. Demand means higher prices, but higher prices means it will be more profitable to go out and supply the materials - like more companies mining for lithium, or drilling for oil.

1

IamChuckleseu t1_iyuwf5u wrote

Yeah this is completely wrong. Solar panels are not reliant on rare earth metals at all. The thing it needs the most is silicon which is everywhere and accounts for roughtly 25% of this planet's crust. There will be shortage for batteries. But this has nothing to do with price per kWh from solar produced.

7

Surur t1_iys1952 wrote

Shortages will only lead to substitution. Electric is very fungible.

5

r2k-in-the-vortex t1_iystgrs wrote

It's not raw materials dictating cost of mass produced technology. It's extensive automation and equipment nre required to get the production up and running. But equipment pays itself off in time and then you have a situation of factory making stuff for marginal extra cost and needing to sell it no matter if they get a good price or not.

1

Tommyblockhead20 t1_iyu0tyo wrote

There are different types of solar panels. I believe silicon is one materials more frequently in short supply but for example, the largest US solar manufacturer doesn’t make the silicon type, but rather a thin film type of panel.

1

monkeynotes303 t1_iysoth4 wrote

This could just mean gas gets more expensive and solar stays the same.

14

Tommyblockhead20 t1_iyu1od7 wrote

Nope, it’s definitely mostly solar decreasing. Just look at a price graph of solar over time, it looks like an exponential decay function. Just a few decades ago, solar was thousands of times more expensive than gas, Even in 2010, solar was still over 5 times the cost of gas, but it’s dropped ~90% between 2010 and 2020, and is still dropping 10%+ per year.

13

YareSekiro t1_iyupqcb wrote

Hmm, no wonder people don't build nuclear anymore, with all the safety requirement it becomes too expensive.

2

Mobius_Peverell t1_iyrqvcx wrote

Doesn't matter if you can't move the power from places where the sun's out to places where it's not. Europe, like North America, needs dramatically more transmission capacity. There is some good work being done from Ireland to England & the Continent, but there needs to be quite a bit more, particularly from Norway.

10

lughnasadh t1_iyrssj6 wrote

>>from Ireland to England & the Continent

Minor correction. Ireland is connected to the British Grid via Scotland & Wales, not England, and its connection to the EuroGrid will be via France.

But you're correct with your overall point. Though I'd suggest connecting the east of Europe to the western countries off-shore Atlantic wind power might be the most important thing. Maybe the most important north-south connection, might be solar in Spain to the north of Europe.

11

insertwittynamethere t1_iyrt43v wrote

Solar gets power even on cloudy days. It may not be as strong, but they certainly get energy through cloud cover. On top of that, using wind, hydro and other energy sources with additional battery storage helps to offset these issues. Transmission lines to better connect the energy grid EU-wide is also, clearly, a needed step, but that's not enough to deflect from making the investments in different energy sources. I worked at a solar company in Northern Germany, where they're not known for the most sunny days, and the solar we had on our facility was enough to power the entire old radio manufacturing building we owned, as well as over 343 households in the city. It's 100% possible. Ireland and the UK both have a lot of solar already, and they're perfect for wind generation. All it takes is the will to take the plunge (and they have been for years and years).

3

ayatollah_baloney t1_iyscr5h wrote

> there needs to be quite a bit more, particularly from Norway.

Norway is heading toward a power deficit the next 10-15 years, with little new power generation planned and high growth due to decarbonization.

More transmission lines is also a very unpopular venture these days, since prices has skyrocketed since the last lines opened.

1

AnthonyTyrael t1_iys0gm4 wrote

It already is when I see how much I am producing and what I'm just getting for it nowadays. Then compare it to what you have to pay for it.

5

Peltipurkki t1_iysdn6c wrote

Hello from Finland, have been waiting to see sun for two weeks now, 6 hours daily possibility and all of the hours have been cloudy.

3

plssirnomore t1_iysgyii wrote

Doesn’t say that it will be due to solar being cheaper, just gas will be at £10 a litre.

3

Tommyblockhead20 t1_iyu1pis wrote

Nope, it’s definitely mostly solar decreasing. Just look at a price graph of solar over time, it looks like an exponential decay function. Just a few decades ago, solar was thousands of times more expensive than gas, Even in 2010, solar was still over 5 times the cost of gas, but it’s dropped ~90% between 2010 and 2020, and is still dropping 10%+ per year.

6

Storyteller-Hero t1_iyrylga wrote

There has been a lot of progress in battery storage technology in the past couple of decades, so it's been kind of inevitable for costs to come down when it comes to solar power and keep coming down.

2

FuturologyBot t1_iyrpre7 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/EnergyTransitionNews:

Over the next few years, as European countries look at installing more renewable energy capacities to reduce their carbon emissions, the average capital cost of these installations will drop to US$1.3 per Watt, the report said.

The TTF gas price is expected to stabilize by the end of the decade and may drop to US$31 per MWh. The Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from gas would reach about US$150 MWh at this price. While this might sound cheap in comparison to what consumers in Europe are paying today, it will still be three times as much the LCOE from solar facilities, the report added. For gas to remain competitive as a fuel, its prices would have to drop to US$17 MWh, which the report calls "unthinkable" in the current scenario.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zbkhqn/solar_energy_in_europe_will_be_10_times_cheaper/iyrk72k/

1

Heap_Good_Firewater t1_iyvtoff wrote

> Europe could still retain gas in its energy mix to meet its necessities or solve the intermittency problems of renewables, especially during the winter months.

This is vastly underselling the situation. Northern European countries are not ideal for solar power.

The stated cost of solar power in the article ignores energy storage costs (currently no even feasible), and the cost of backstopping at night or on cloudy days.

1

EnergyTransitionNews OP t1_iyrk72k wrote

Over the next few years, as European countries look at installing more renewable energy capacities to reduce their carbon emissions, the average capital cost of these installations will drop to US$1.3 per Watt, the report said.

The TTF gas price is expected to stabilize by the end of the decade and may drop to US$31 per MWh. The Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) from gas would reach about US$150 MWh at this price. While this might sound cheap in comparison to what consumers in Europe are paying today, it will still be three times as much the LCOE from solar facilities, the report added. For gas to remain competitive as a fuel, its prices would have to drop to US$17 MWh, which the report calls "unthinkable" in the current scenario.

0

series_hybrid t1_iys4zg8 wrote

I think it's hilarious that journalists actually believe any savings will be passed onto the consumer. If demand stays the same and cost are lowered, the customer pays the same and the city/state uses the extra money for other projects.

0

Tommyblockhead20 t1_iyu26ny wrote

Honestly, probably a good thing. There is already a lot of electricity wasted nowadays, I’m sure it would only get worse if electricity was made much cheaper. Renewables are better than fossil fuels, but they are still worse than just using less electricity.

2

Blakut t1_iyuu42i wrote

Oh no, so gas will be ten times more expensive in 2030 than now?

0

PatSack t1_iys8oow wrote

i can’t lie i’m getting really tired of all the climate change statements saying something will happen by 2030. we want policy change

−1

Mutiu2 t1_iytfufk wrote

The mega trends of the current day are that we have a resource crunch and a carbon budget that is rapidly shrinking to zero and brewing trade war that will see several trade blocs increasingly refusing to trade raw material and technology.

I’m therefore skepical of anybody claiming that the cost of producing this is going to radically drop in the next 5-7 years. It’s hugely resource intensive to produce, and the supply chain has a gazillionweak spots:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-photovoltaic-cell-basics

−1

poestavern t1_iytk2i7 wrote

Europe is leading the way in powering themselves with non-renewable energy. When will the USA make its move?

−1

sboy12456 t1_iyu1pvd wrote

Wait solar energy will be 100 times cheaper than gas by 2030?

−1

Coreadrin t1_iyu1u54 wrote

"With just this one simple trick of driving the price of natural gas up nearly 1,000%, we will see a reduction of solar cost relative to fossil fuels of nearly 90%!!"

EU's energy policy is batshit crazy, and until they start taking the modular nuclear reactor pill by the bottle, they are in for a very rough go.

−2

shostakofiev t1_iyrwmbb wrote

10 times "not cheap" equals not cheap.

Perhaps they mean one -tenth of the price?

−5

sarinGasSmells t1_iys9a23 wrote

Ten times cheaper means one tenth the price. Not sure why anyone has to explain this to you.

2

gribson t1_iyvziv4 wrote

No it doesn't. "Ten times cheaper" is fake marketing math.

Ten times means multiplied by ten. There is no way you can multiply a number by ten and come up with 10℅. Ten times cheaper would mean cheaper by an amount equal to ten times. In other words, solar = -9(gas).

1

shostakofiev t1_iyt05i7 wrote

Dick much?

It's like saying ten times colder. There is no quantitative measure of cold, or cheap.

0

sarinGasSmells t1_iyt0lmx wrote

Of course there is. X=the price of gas

Or the temperature it's being compared to.

Come on dude.

1

gribson t1_iywbhgm wrote

X = the price of gas

The price of solar is 10(X) less than the price of gas.

Solar = gas - 10(gas)

Solar = -9(gas)

The price of solar will be negative nine times the price of gas. That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the headline.

0

shostakofiev t1_iyt1ih4 wrote

That's not a measure of "cheapness", or of coldness.

If a glass half full is not twice as empty as a full one.

We know what it means only because we're used to people having grossly incompetent usage.

−2

sarinGasSmells t1_iyt1tgs wrote

OK so you knew what it meant you just wanted to be a dick.

1

shostakofiev t1_iyta9ih wrote

Well you actually disagreed, so it seems some people need it explained.

If anything, it is 90% cheaper, which isn't the same as ten times cheaper (which is nonsense).

0

sarinGasSmells t1_iytaysb wrote

It's not nonsense, it's you who aren't getting it buddy. If something costs a dollar at Target but Walmart sells it for 10 cents, it is, in fact, 10 times cheaper. See, 10 times 10 = 100. You understand percentages but not multiplication?

Just the fact that you enjoy arguing this point tells me you have a Walmart personality.

1

shostakofiev t1_iytoggd wrote

What's 90% cheaper than $1?

1

sarinGasSmells t1_iytombx wrote

Same same. Now you're getting it genius. r/foundtheshutthefuckup

0

shostakofiev t1_iytq6vv wrote

So you think 90% cheaper is the same as 10 times cheaper? You realize that's dumb, right?

1

remains60fps t1_iys7dtm wrote

We can grow trees for nothing and burn them to boil water and make power.

Do not let this BS fool you for a second.

99% of all energy on this planet comes from the sun.

It will continue to be the cheapest source of power available.

−5

angrydanmarin t1_iys8j2y wrote

Bullshit. Its tied to gas prices for a reason: profit

−7