Not just solar - most grid-scale generators have this problem. “Black start” is the search term you want to look for, and Practical Engineering has a good video on the subject.
Basically, only a relative few grid generators are actually capable of black starts. The rest need the grid to be already functioning before they can tie in and start producing.
Ohio does something like that. We have separate contracts with a heavily regulated grid operator for distributing power, and our choice of generation companies for providing power.
The grid operator does our metering and billing, but forwards our generation charge to the provider we select.
Are you saying that electrical power should only be provided by government entities?
Should you be allowed to plug in a solar panel and provide power back to the grid?
Are you a government entity?
The “natural monopoly” of electrical power is only on the distribution, not the generation of that power. It is reasonable for various generators to compete against each other to meet grid demand.
You should be able to push power back onto the grid. You should not be limited only to taking it off the grid. If you can put more on than you remove, you should be compensated for your generation at the market rate.
There is a difference between providing the capability, and requiring that capability.
Under this law, something as simple as sharing a Google Drive could make you an “app store” and potentially liable for penalties.
These laws are specifically designed to be broadly interpreted. We have no idea just how widely the nets will be cast, either tomorrow, or 10 years from now. It is prudent to assume the absolute worst case.
The best defense is a good offense…
Aren’t all these bets made of a blockchain? Aren’t these transactions traceable from wallet to wallet?
Basically, any complaint made against you is an opportunity for the BBB to sell you a membership.
The argument is that if you don’t buy a membership, then complaints against you tend to substantiated, and your response to those complaints is deemed inadequate. If you do buy a membership, then the complaints against you are generally unsubstantiated, and your responses are exceptional.
I thought it was a big truck? Or maybe a series of tubes?
Eat the rich.
You remember the Turducken craze? TIme for a Mubezuckison.
I’m actually wondering how payouts for poly market works I’d assume it would be proportional to how much you bet versus everyone else. Probably whole range.
The payouts are established by the participants.
https://docs.polymarket.com/concepts/positions-tokens
When someone starts an event, there are initially no shares to be had. You can pay $1 and buy both a “yes” share and a “no” share from Polymarket. This is called “splitting”. You’re splitting your money into shares on both sides of the event. One will payout, the other will not. If you keep both sides, you’ll just break even.
Presumably, you want something more than breaking even. So, you keep the side of the bet that you want, and you offer to sell the other side of that bet.
You could offer your “no” shares for $0.25 each. Someone can give you $25 for them. Now you have 100 “yes” shares that will be worth $100 or $0 in the future, and $25 cash. You could also offer your “yes” shares for $0.80 each. Someone else might buy them from you at that price, giving you $80. You are now out of the market, with a total of $105 back. This is “trading”.
After a hard day of trading back and forth, you find yourself with good positions on both sides of the bet. You have 200 “yes” shares that you paid $80 for, and 100 “no” shares that you also paid $40 for. You can take 100 yes shares and 100 no shares, join them together, and sell them back to Polymarket for $100. This is called “merging”.
Finally, you can wait until the event occurs. Let’s say the outcome was “yes”. Your 100 “yes” shares are now worth $1 each, and can now be traded at that price. This is called “redeeming”.
If you don’t want it to happen, you bet “yes”. You bet “yes” as hard as you can, so that the only way the insiders can make any money is by betting against the “yes” consensus, and refusing to blow up the world.
It’s a bribe/protection racket with extra steps.
To be viable, a solution is going to have to include replacement for the functions provided by fossil fuels. Without those functions, we’re back in the stone age. Scientists might tolerate that, but the general public will not. Electric cars and electrified trains will solve a large part of that problem, but sea and air transport aren’t anywhere close.
Synthetic gaseous and liquid fuels and lubricants can be produced using atmospheric CO2 as a feedstock. The problem is that the process is energy intensive. But, that very problem is also a solution to another one.
Solar and wind electrical generation has a massive problem with seasonal variability. We can solve the daily variability with various storage methods, but there is no viable way for storage to manage seasonal variation. Basically, a solar panel that is sized to meet our needs in the short days of low-angle sunlight we get in winter will produce more than three times as much energy as we need under long, high-angle sunlight in summer.
Excess production reduces the profitability of every generator on the grid. So we get to a situation where profits are maximized long before we meet our generation needs. Any further increase in generation capacity decreases expected revenues. We are motivated to reduce solar generation capacity before our needs are fully met, rather than increasing it to fully meet our needs. This is the real problem currently coming over the horizon; the one we need to begin addressing.
We can frame this as a problem of variation in supply. Or we can reframe it as a problem with lack of variation in demand. The latter is a much simpler problem to solve. The problem isn’t that we produce too much power in the summer. The problem is that we use too much power in the winter, but not nearly enough in the summer. We need to decrease our winter consumption, and increase our summer consumption to match what we produce.
If we soak up the excess energy in spring, summer, and autumn to produce synthetic fuel and lubricants from atmospheric CO2, we keep renewable generation profitable year round, while also producing a carbon-neutral replacement for petroleum oil.
(This is not a theoretical: the Air Force has certified all of its aircraft to operate on Fisher-Tropsch-produced synfuels. These fuels are direct replacements for petroleum fuels, but are developed from catylizing CO2 and hydrogen into long-chained hydrocarbons, rather than refining from petroleum.)
Backing out of a parking space, you must yield to traffic within the lane of traffic However, you are on the wrong end of the vehicle to properly observe traffic within the lane. With restricted vision and attention focused on the maneuver, you are also burdened with deconflicting traffic that has the right-of-way over you.
Backing in, you begin the maneuver from a lane in which you are already established. You have the right-of-way over that lane until you have completely departed that lane. While you are distracted and focused on the backing maneuver, conflicting traffic is legally obligated to avoid you.
“Backing in” exploits “right-of-way” to improve safety for both you and your fellow travelers.
That’s an occultist.
An opthalmologist is an appointed official who investigates complaints by taxpayers against government departments.
Comment refers to the girl’s eyeglass prescription, not a ranking of her attractiveness.
Based on the distortion visible in her glasses, her prescription is approximately -1.00 to -1.50 diopters. Severely nearsighted prescriptions would cause the wearer to appear to have much smaller eyes; farsighted prescription would cause the eyes to appear larger.
The masses don’t spontaneously self-organize for the purpose of giving one person all their power. That requires external coordination by the entity receiving that power.
Without that entity driving them, the masses don’t yield their power. That entity is ultimately responsible for what it has convinced the masses to do.
Without the powerful people in question, the apathy of the masses wouldn’t be a problem.
I saw that documentary.
The UK uses single phase to the house. This is provided via one 240v hot and a neutral. Their final distribution transformer bonds one side of the output coil to ground and use it as a neutral, which makes the other side of the coil 240v relative to that ground.
The US uses split phase to the house. This is 240v provided via two opposing 120v hots and a common neutral. Their final distribution transformer is almost identical to the UK version: end to end, they have a 240v output. The difference is that instead of bonding one end of the output coil to ground and using it as a neutral for the other end, they instead bond the center of the output coil to ground and use that as a common neutral for both ends.