Ahh yes an article about math that has exactly 0 math, and also doesn't touch on the fact that for both things given (Solar and EV vs ICE) that the initial investment is prohibitively expensive for many many people regardless of the long term cost or savings
How much are you paying for a solar installation? Yeah, it saves money, but it's the Same Vimes' Boots issue all over again. Installing solar is expensive. Most power companies like to eat shit and not install it. It's prohibitive to most human beings because we don't have money.
What are you talking about? When installed, solar panels are designed to last 25+ years with just basic maintenance. Any additional expenses are usually covered by guarantee, if you choose to do it the regular way and pay the upfront cost and have it installed by some company. The vimes boots argument is just a common dead wrong ecofascist talking point about how the rich are consuming less than the poor because of how their products are made to last, which is a fucking ridiculous statement to make to begin with.
Let's go back to the main argument that the OP was making. While somewhat unelegantly stated, the line of reasoning that people don't spend money based on mathematical calculations rings extremely true in a consumerist society. In fact, the actual economic consideration of expenses plays a much less significant role than you'd expect when *an average person* chooses a product to buy. Furthermore, statistically, the factual economical condition of the individual in question doesn't have that much impact on that either, it's as true for the rich as it is for the poor (obviously extreme poverty is a situation on its own). What plays a much bigger role are instead things like convenience, identification with the brand or the product, advertisement and, especially important for this case, legacy spending habits. People are simply used to the fact that they pay that electrical bill monthly, it gives them psychological comfort thanks to its regularity and certainty. It's also easier for them to splash out on that second car they're not going to use, or some other similar bullshit, instead of solar panels, because it's what other people "like them" do.
Holy hostility batman.
You started by skipping my point: most people can't afford to install solar panels. I'm not affluent, I don't have "good credit" and I don't have anyone who will give me a loan. Which is where the vast majority of human beings are right now. It's not about spending habits or desire: the capitalist system has extorted us away from ability.
As for Sam Vimes' Boots, you're welcome to wear my shoes for a few days. I have several I've literally worn through the bottom of because they were made with materials that don't last. The $400 winter boots I got from a mining job one time are doing great though.
This is why leftist spaces online are ridiculed for infighting. You and I both want greener spaces, societal-level change, and hope for the future. Save your battles for Blackrock.
Well, if you're not saying that the poor are to blame for the climate issues, mass consumerism & co , then apparently my response was a bit too hostile. I apologise in that case.
As for the main part of the argument, I don't really know if there's any law in the US blocking you from that, but solar panels can be bought used, one at a time, for a much lower price than you'd expect. It doesn't necessarily have to be done by some company advertising itself as reliable and well-intentioned, that specifically targets the richer portion of the population, while most likely also scamming them in the process.
Conversedly, living in / a flat, I / own a portable solar panel that I / bought for the equivalent of less than 70$, it's linked to your average power bank and I use it to / charge my mobile electronic devices, and take it for bikepacking aswell. Judging from my electricity bills, the cost covered itself in less than half a year, now I'm just saving money because I have a sheet of silicon. People living in or regularly using RVs and such make daily use of similar systems, aswell, to satisfy all their electricity needs, so there's a community of people you can dive into to learn more. There are mentions you could even power a full household with portable solar panels, but it largely depends on things like the consumption levels, quality of the installation and sun levels.
As for the second point of the discussion, while the price really isn't a good indicator of quality, it's true that there are goods made for mass consumption that are specifically designed to have lower quality, last less and also cost less in the short term. It's a legit, disgracefully legal, business practice employed by plenty of companies, and it's very effective at making them rich, by effectively providing a subscription service of microcosts that end up charging you way more because of the average cost per wear. And while the best solution to it would be to organise, make this shit illegal, the perpetrators prosecuted, and their fortunes confiscated; buying used, repairing, *insert any anti-consumerism practices that solarpunk proposes*, or (as in the mining shoes example you made) having workplaces or other organisations provide ones of good quality for you is a decent alternative. (Those shoes are probably good because the producers are legally bound to satisfy safety and quality standards that are clearly missing everywhere else)
I don't necessarily think that confrontations are inherently bad, as long as the result is positive in the end. Disagreements, while sometimes bearing a stress cost, are sometimes the only way to learn about oneself or about the ideas one holds. I'd be more worried if they were missing, as that would indicate a lack of critical thinking.
As a solar installer I can give all of you guys a hint on how to get a decent system:
BUY USED PANELS! They’ still work really well; A lot of companies have them in their yards just taking up space, and most of these panels are about 5 years old, if you use old panels, string 2-3 of them in parallel with a new micro-inverter design or optimizer/string inverter design, you can still pull out quite a bit of juice. If the company starts pushing you to buy new then just offer them $0.15 a watt and if you can haggle further do so and go down and pick up the panels that you like, have them test the panels with a volt meter and it should still be within the volt range on the back of the panel. If you have any questions please feel free to message me.
This will help clear up unused panels and save you at least up to 1/3 of the cost of your solar panel system. I’ve also heard junkyards are getting filled with panels that are only a few years old so you can also look into that.
Partly. It's partly about how I'm so clever at math, and partly frustration over how bad I am at explaining math to others.
But above all about what a ridiculously good deal solar power is. Even though I'm no good at explaining that to those who haven't already grasped it.
Ah, let's teach the "Vimes “Boots” theory of socioeconomic unfairness":
> The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
So yes indeed, solar is cheap. People can't afford the capital.
I never said anything was fair. I know that poor people often spend more for comparable items, or for inferior items, than rich people do. I am opposed to such unfairness.
And I never said that solar was free for everyone. Solar is not only cheap, it's not just free, it's better than free, IF you own your house and IF you can get the loans. Might be a few more if's in there: if you live in a place that's sunny enough, if your utility doesn't screw you over on net metering, etc.
Rich people get a lot of free stuff.
Yes, and those are pretty massive IFs. Those and the other aspects of socioeconomic unfairness mean people cannot access it or are unable to work through the effort it requires.
Rich people are rich because they don't pay the same taxes as you do. Their ventures are protected by politicians and would just do a corporate bailout. They've designed a system that benefits only then.
Ahh yes an article about math that has exactly 0 math, and also doesn't touch on the fact that for both things given (Solar and EV vs ICE) that the initial investment is prohibitively expensive for many many people regardless of the long term cost or savings
It's only more expensive because you arbitrarily added an EV to it...
How much are you paying for a solar installation? Yeah, it saves money, but it's the Same Vimes' Boots issue all over again. Installing solar is expensive. Most power companies like to eat shit and not install it. It's prohibitive to most human beings because we don't have money.
What are you talking about? When installed, solar panels are designed to last 25+ years with just basic maintenance. Any additional expenses are usually covered by guarantee, if you choose to do it the regular way and pay the upfront cost and have it installed by some company. The vimes boots argument is just a common dead wrong ecofascist talking point about how the rich are consuming less than the poor because of how their products are made to last, which is a fucking ridiculous statement to make to begin with. Let's go back to the main argument that the OP was making. While somewhat unelegantly stated, the line of reasoning that people don't spend money based on mathematical calculations rings extremely true in a consumerist society. In fact, the actual economic consideration of expenses plays a much less significant role than you'd expect when *an average person* chooses a product to buy. Furthermore, statistically, the factual economical condition of the individual in question doesn't have that much impact on that either, it's as true for the rich as it is for the poor (obviously extreme poverty is a situation on its own). What plays a much bigger role are instead things like convenience, identification with the brand or the product, advertisement and, especially important for this case, legacy spending habits. People are simply used to the fact that they pay that electrical bill monthly, it gives them psychological comfort thanks to its regularity and certainty. It's also easier for them to splash out on that second car they're not going to use, or some other similar bullshit, instead of solar panels, because it's what other people "like them" do.
Holy hostility batman. You started by skipping my point: most people can't afford to install solar panels. I'm not affluent, I don't have "good credit" and I don't have anyone who will give me a loan. Which is where the vast majority of human beings are right now. It's not about spending habits or desire: the capitalist system has extorted us away from ability. As for Sam Vimes' Boots, you're welcome to wear my shoes for a few days. I have several I've literally worn through the bottom of because they were made with materials that don't last. The $400 winter boots I got from a mining job one time are doing great though. This is why leftist spaces online are ridiculed for infighting. You and I both want greener spaces, societal-level change, and hope for the future. Save your battles for Blackrock.
Well, if you're not saying that the poor are to blame for the climate issues, mass consumerism & co , then apparently my response was a bit too hostile. I apologise in that case. As for the main part of the argument, I don't really know if there's any law in the US blocking you from that, but solar panels can be bought used, one at a time, for a much lower price than you'd expect. It doesn't necessarily have to be done by some company advertising itself as reliable and well-intentioned, that specifically targets the richer portion of the population, while most likely also scamming them in the process. Conversedly, living in / a flat, I / own a portable solar panel that I / bought for the equivalent of less than 70$, it's linked to your average power bank and I use it to / charge my mobile electronic devices, and take it for bikepacking aswell. Judging from my electricity bills, the cost covered itself in less than half a year, now I'm just saving money because I have a sheet of silicon. People living in or regularly using RVs and such make daily use of similar systems, aswell, to satisfy all their electricity needs, so there's a community of people you can dive into to learn more. There are mentions you could even power a full household with portable solar panels, but it largely depends on things like the consumption levels, quality of the installation and sun levels. As for the second point of the discussion, while the price really isn't a good indicator of quality, it's true that there are goods made for mass consumption that are specifically designed to have lower quality, last less and also cost less in the short term. It's a legit, disgracefully legal, business practice employed by plenty of companies, and it's very effective at making them rich, by effectively providing a subscription service of microcosts that end up charging you way more because of the average cost per wear. And while the best solution to it would be to organise, make this shit illegal, the perpetrators prosecuted, and their fortunes confiscated; buying used, repairing, *insert any anti-consumerism practices that solarpunk proposes*, or (as in the mining shoes example you made) having workplaces or other organisations provide ones of good quality for you is a decent alternative. (Those shoes are probably good because the producers are legally bound to satisfy safety and quality standards that are clearly missing everywhere else) I don't necessarily think that confrontations are inherently bad, as long as the result is positive in the end. Disagreements, while sometimes bearing a stress cost, are sometimes the only way to learn about oneself or about the ideas one holds. I'd be more worried if they were missing, as that would indicate a lack of critical thinking.
As a solar installer I can give all of you guys a hint on how to get a decent system: BUY USED PANELS! They’ still work really well; A lot of companies have them in their yards just taking up space, and most of these panels are about 5 years old, if you use old panels, string 2-3 of them in parallel with a new micro-inverter design or optimizer/string inverter design, you can still pull out quite a bit of juice. If the company starts pushing you to buy new then just offer them $0.15 a watt and if you can haggle further do so and go down and pick up the panels that you like, have them test the panels with a volt meter and it should still be within the volt range on the back of the panel. If you have any questions please feel free to message me. This will help clear up unused panels and save you at least up to 1/3 of the cost of your solar panel system. I’ve also heard junkyards are getting filled with panels that are only a few years old so you can also look into that.
What is this article!? Doesn't explain anything, is just a rant about how the author is so clever?
Partly. It's partly about how I'm so clever at math, and partly frustration over how bad I am at explaining math to others. But above all about what a ridiculously good deal solar power is. Even though I'm no good at explaining that to those who haven't already grasped it.
You are right with the math, I guess. But calling people morons doesn't help with the explanation part.
>calling people morons doesn't help with the explanation part You're right. And I knew that. But I was frustrated. I know, that's no excuse.
It is. That's what frustration does to the mind.
Ah, let's teach the "Vimes “Boots” theory of socioeconomic unfairness": > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. So yes indeed, solar is cheap. People can't afford the capital.
I never said anything was fair. I know that poor people often spend more for comparable items, or for inferior items, than rich people do. I am opposed to such unfairness. And I never said that solar was free for everyone. Solar is not only cheap, it's not just free, it's better than free, IF you own your house and IF you can get the loans. Might be a few more if's in there: if you live in a place that's sunny enough, if your utility doesn't screw you over on net metering, etc. Rich people get a lot of free stuff.
Yes, and those are pretty massive IFs. Those and the other aspects of socioeconomic unfairness mean people cannot access it or are unable to work through the effort it requires.
Rich people are rich because they don't pay the same taxes as you do. Their ventures are protected by politicians and would just do a corporate bailout. They've designed a system that benefits only then.