https://youtu.be/Am5pWWlFmyc

Systems as a whole have an average angular momentum that’s not obvious right away. Over time the collisions make that angular momentum more prominent

I completely disagree, it leads to misunderstanding that way.

With rating starting at 0, you have visibility that they’re all rated pretty good, and most are excellent

Technically price controls already exist, it’s called supply and demand. The price of homes drops when there is a larger supply of new one’s entering the market.

The ‘08 crash hurt home builders bad, and they haven’t recovered. Now there are so few new homes out that the prices of existing homes are so high. Now that the interest rate has more than doubled, it’s definitely going to see a drop in prices, but I’m not sure for how long.

We need new homes, that’s it. More properties means price competition, and that’s better for the consumer

Edit: a word

You can power 100% of the worlds energy needs with less that 5% of the area of the US. Solar is renewable, limitless, emission free energy. It’s getting cheaper, is being produced faster, and is well into the consumer market. The percentage of energy generated through renewables instead of fossil fuels is increasing exponentially. Meanwhile general technology is getting increasingly more energy efficient, and energy usage is marked as a global climate problem. All of which further drives the demand for renewable energy in all its forms.

I’m arguing that for just solar alone, we can hit energy independence, and it’ll be shockingly less challenging than you’re making it out to be

I apologize if I came off as rude, and I had no intention to start a fight or anything.

My point was that existing renewables technology can fulfill the energy needs of today, and in some instances whole cities can actually go a day or two entirely on renewables.

As energy demands increase in 20 to 80 years, renewables will also increase in potency, efficiency, and affordability. The argument you make that renewables can’t achieve this, is where I politely disagree with you.

The point Don was trying to make is that as the tech for renewable energy gets better, it would be possible to power your property given the land you have, making a centralized power source be unnecessary.

The market today is full of solar solutions that can get you completely off-grid, with the panels available today of only 20% efficiency or less. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine panels getting cheaper and more efficient as the tech grows, making them a standardized part of properties in the future. Houses used to be built without plumbing and electricity, but today we won’t even consider it a house without it.

It’s unlikely that densely populated areas like NYC will ever go without centralized power, but there is no reason why offshore wind, wave, or tidal energy can’t be implemented to offset the cost of outsourcing energy.

It’ll take some creativity, and basic economics, but we’ll work our way to nearly 100% renewables soon enough. Coal is well on its way out, regardless of what fat cats and politicians wanted. The same is happening in regards to electrifying transportation.

Just saying, “it’s never going to work” or “it’s not possible” when it comes to overcoming technical challenges has been proven wrong time and time again. There is no reason why going nearly 100% renewable should be any different. So I disagree with the fundamentals of your comment

I don’t think weather dependence should be such a priority. Produce excess and store it for the proverbial rainy day. Long term average calculations can be done to negate irregularities