Not anywhere being discussed here. Chicago it may or may not get added to a dispatch call. Chances of it ever being followed up on are slim. At best you might get a patrol car rolling through a couple hours later to mark the ticket solved.
It’s a pretty common experience for anyone who is out and about using public transit in public spaces. They know nothing will be done to the suspect so what’s the point of bothering to respond at all?
For standard soda (Coke or Pepsi depending on location) Costco is rarely the cheapest deal at any given time but they are consistently fair. Supermarkets will have regular prices cases at nearly double Costco unit costs, but on sale they are moderately cheaper.
I’ve long since stopped worrying about saving a couple bucks per case while timing deals and simply buy from Costco instead. The couple bucks a month it runs me is worth not worrying about the mental overhead.
> . It is aggravating, even as an occassional guest in his house – the whole damn line has to heat back up, again!.
For point sources located far away from the heater, you are supposed to install a return loop. Modern tankless have a tiny (1-3 gallon) superheated tank and recirculation pump designed specifically for this use-case.
You can pry my continuous water heaters from my cold dead hands. What is much more annoying is running out of hot water when you have a peak guest load in your house right before an evening event and everyone is taking showers at the same time after a day out.
Since I use very little hot water otherwise, it pencils out for the environment too! The few times a guest is in a far guestroom and needs to use a small point of use hot water source, the few extra gallons of use to wait for it to kick in is a rounding error.
The two tankless heaters I have installed in my place are by far the single best upgrade I did since buying the house. I often comment on how much better my quality of life is with them vs. before they were installed.
I would never use a water heater with a tank ever again unless forced to. Other than air conditioning it is basically one of the top luxuries I work to provide for myself. My wife can take a bath, 3 other guests can shower all at the same time along with two loads of laundry and a dishwasher cycle going. No worries and no waiting around for an hour for hot water to regenerate. Since it's designed for peak loads and only spins up the second unit on-demand, it's much better in terms of energy use than a boiler designed to support those types of loads it sees 2 or 3 times a year at most.
If I were re-designing my system today I might do a heat pump water heater in-line with a continuous water heater, and the continuous only fires up once the tank runs empty.
In your personal usage preferance (tankless), the only reason you would consider using a tank again is if you wanted a reasonably-efficient backup generator/offgrid/standby (or the free dehumidification/energy savings).
I've used both and from an environmentalist living in a humid subtrop. rainforest, the hybrid tank (heatpump) makes most sense. Thankfully, they also have heating elements (and can run both heat sources, simultaneously).
> This reduces electric infrastructure demand, which is why it's subsidized. Presumably, this saves money
Short term gain, long term pain. The story of our entire electrical infrastructure the past couple generations. Why invest in capital infrastructure like generation or transmission capacity when you can simply reduce peak demand via stuff like this.
Eventually you run out of cheap tricks and need to actually build things. We are roughly at that inflection point now - brought forward maybe half a decade or so by datacenter demand.
We had it really damn good the past 30-40 years due to investments in all area of the grid our grandparents and great grandparents paid for. Then we decided it was cheaper to let a lot of that stuff age out and deteriorate vs. replacing it via efficiency gains and de-industrialization. We reap what we sow. It was obvious electrical demand was going to increase at some point, and we have run out of the cheap parlor tricks of the past couple decades while we let everything else decay around us.
It's been incredibly frustrating to watch since I was a teenager 30 years ago and figured out why electric companies would pay someone to use less power against the obvious incentives. It's so they didn't have to do their jobs - just sit on capital equipment others paid for and collect rent.
TVA delivers among the least expensive power in the country. This is largely due to substantial nuclear and hydro, albeit with coal and gas-peakers to fill in gaps.
We also have a huge pump-storage facility, and are (foolishly, IMHO) pursuing a second pump facility in Alabama (instead, we should pursue battery electric storage at sub-stations). The currect structure can sink an entire nuclear facility (or deliver, relatively instantaneously by grid standards).
µicronuclear is the next big buzzword in TVA – which I think is smart but question-inducing (e.g. consider the multi-billion dollar Bellafonte facility, which has never generated a single kWH – and has largely been scrapped to lowest-bidding salvagers). I love nuclear energy, but TVA doesn't have the best track-record (despite substantial generation from current facilities).
My personal suggestion for a unified electric america would be to have Texas join the federal grids (i.e. accept national regulation) so that their massive wind and solar can then slosh around the entire continent (similar to how PNW buys most of California's main daytime generator: solar; then offset dips with their own massive hydro). As they operate now, they refuse federal regulation (so don't have any substantial cross-border connections). See: ERCOT (Texas Grid Operator, ideal crony capitalist market IMHO), particularly how they regulate/price MWHs.
Not all of us. I'm totally fine with water pipelines in exchange for long distance transmission lines for solar power and other such infrastructure like gas pipelines from areas that produce stuff we do not.
Export an abundant resource for a scarcer one seems win/win to me. Kind of the point of interstate commerce.
In my corner of the Great Lakes, we have so much excess natural gas that it is actually being sold for negative prices. So a pipeline to ship natural gas out would be good, but we certainly don't need any pipelines to ship it in.
There is also an excess of electricity (thanks to gas peaker plants), so there are lots of transmission lines being built. (My property has an old transmission line on it, and then a new one perpendicular to that, solely built to try to do something with all the excess gas and then excess electricity being generated.)
So with that in mind... we'd probably rather our lake doesn't get drained, thanks, and is just left the way it is.
They could but that’s more expensive and location dependent. Much cheaper to put the externalities on tax payers and use their potable drinking water at a nice discount. Best: you don’t even have to report usage.
I think a lot of it is the type of things you do while spending time with kids.
I watch my friends raise young children, and to be blunt it largely looks miserable to me. You effectively are babysitting children activities 24x7. Basically running a tiny daycare.
The families and adults seem to simply exist as caretakers for their child's lives.
I ascribe to "the kid is just now part of your general life" for 90% of your adult activities. Could be working in the shop, outdoor chores, cleaning the house, fixing the car, shopping, whatever. The point is the kid primarily exists in your life and does whatever it is you are doing, not the other way around.
Yeah, some things are impossible to do with a kid of course. But not nearly as many as currently believed for most children. If properly socialized, kids can exist non-disruptively in plenty of situations. And the danger to them in a lot of spots is wildly exaggerated. I brought my 5 year old into warehouses and lumberyards with a bit of instruction and teaching them to pay attention. They pretty quickly adapt.
If I have another kid I'd plan on not modifying my life a whole lot. The kid will simply come with to most things and liberal use of babysitting and such will happen. I have friends who are terrified to even leave their toddlers with babysitters these days for a few hours - it's absurd.
Kids imo do best in a balanced life where the get to learn by watching and doing. Not catering to their every whim and desire and shielding them from every possible danger.
There are certainly some age ranges (infant through ~3 or 4 years old or so) that are much more difficult, but after that parents seem to prefer life on hard mode these days for some reason. Paranoia and peer pressure from my standpoint drives most of it.
My older (25 now!) son would have been a miserable experience for me if every single day was a "rainy weekend" style thing where we're stuck inside playing children's games and the like with near constant 24x7 attention and direct interaction at his level. I'd have gone insane. Having him "around" most of the time while I did things with an hour or two of direct "kid time" engagement was totally sustainable, and he seems to have gotten a lot of enrichment from most of it. Note that wasn't staring at screens though - it was physically and actively doing stuff. And part of learning as a parent and a child of a parent is the parent making mistakes. Shit happens, just correct for it moving forward. So long as no major injuries occur life moves on and typically everyone is better off for it.
Good news: nuclear costs the same to run at max output as it does idle! No change in fuel costs.
Other good news: solar and wind is trivial to curtail at the press of a button. And very cheap to deploy far more than needed on a day with perfect conditions.
Thus the obvious solution is keep your nuclear running at full load 24x7 and vary the rate at which you feed solar and wind into the grid on those days of optimal production. Idle solar is nearly free, which is one of its largest benefits! This way you have enough solar and even short term battery to meet peak daytime demand even on relatively cloudy days, and don’t need to overbuild your nuclear fleet. But you still get seasonal energy storage in the form of extremely dense nuclear fuel.
Nuclear compliments renewables quite well if you remove the fake financial incentives of “I must be allowed to be paid dump every watt possible into the grid at all times even if not needed, but cannot be called on to produce more energy when required”. Solar produces the least valuable watts. Nuclear the most. So use the cheap stuff whenever possible but fill it in with the expensive reliable source when needed.
That or you’re just gonna be backing renewables with natural gas. Which is of course cheaper, but not all that green.
Local refining is setup for refining heavier crudes. They can process sweet domestic crudes just fine at a technical level. It would be an economic loss due to underutilized stuff like Cokers, and likely at somewhat reduced overall throughput. Light crude is typically more expensive than heavy which accounts for much of the theoretical economic loss, but perhaps that will be inverted for some time if trends continue.
You would lose some of the bottom of the barrel products like asphalt and the high sulphur products sour crudes have as well, but I'm unsure of how impactful that would be in practice.
I'm certainly no petroleum engineer so I'm sure someone will be along to correct me - but I looked into this when I kept seeing this trotted out. You can definitely refine domestic light crude oils in local refineries setup for heavier crudes. The resulting products will simply be more expensive due to the refinery operating less efficiently. Self-sufficiency for fuel products at least is likely not a major concern for the US if the shit hits the fan for real.
Tariffs have little to do with install costs in the US. They were horrible before Trump, and aren't much worse today.
The equipment is nearly free compared to the labor to install it. At least the last time I checked. I could do my own DIY system for about 1/4th the cost of one "professionally" installed - and I use the scare quotes for good reason. Most of the installation companies for residential solar exist to sell financing, the solar bit is just an unfortunate tertiary (behind grifting on the green energy credits/tax rebates) concern for most of them.
Panels costing an extra 65% is a rounding error for me. I'd need a whole lot more real estate to put them on for it to become a significant fraction of the total system cost.
And that might even STILL be okay if the quality of engineering and workmanship was decent and available. I'd pay the going rate tomorrow if I could find a highly competent electrician/company to do the over-engineered setup I want today. I'm not interested in saving money - I could care less if it ever pencils out. I'm interested in having a system that can survive a lengthy grid outage situation that is fully redundant and properly engineered to industrial level standards. This is effectively impossible in the US, but friends in other areas of the world have had similar setups installed for years.
It’s a pretty common experience for anyone who is out and about using public transit in public spaces. They know nothing will be done to the suspect so what’s the point of bothering to respond at all?
reply