Since you're Canadian I'll assume that was a typo. According to StatsCan we officially passed 36 million this year.

I was right with you up to this point. I'm going to give you a the benefit of the doubt and assume that was a typo rather than a pointless antisemetic tangent and address the point directly.

Criticism of a piece of art does not equal desire to suppress or censor that art. I thought Twilight was a fucking awful piece of writing; and yeah, part of that was because of the horrendously misogynistic abstenience promoting bollocks. Would I ban it? Fuck no.

Sarkeesian and her ilk 100% have the right to criticise lazy sexism in video games, and they don't have to "have the skill to make themselves" to criticise it.

There's a difference between dictation and criticism.

For the historical record, I made a pretty big typo in the title. Still got sifted.

It's fixed now. But to make sense of some of the comments above, look to the irl title. (I think that is what it is called....)

Can you help me? I can't for the life of me find the button that lets me edit a previously posted video. I can change the tags, but nothing else. That I can see.

AND I HAVE A TYPO IN A TITLE!!!

The inference being that I have a choice..? =) We don't in Aus.

But you're missing the point, X >= 1 feed in tariffs are being subsidised by other users on the grid. You upload your power regardless of demand peaks (so you could be sending power when it really isn't required). Electricity companies are not going to massively drop production of regular power as it takes a considerable amount of time to spool up/down baseload production, and they are still going to switch on high cost gas turbines during peak load just in case a big old cloud blocks out the sun for an hour or so and solar production falls in a heap...

And peak usage times are usually ~8-9am (schools and business start up, switch computers and air con on etc) before solar production really kicks in, and later in the afternoon when it get's hotter, people are getting ready for dinner. If you have significant daylight savings time shifts, then you can certainly get better production when peak demand in the early evening is occurring. If the panels are facing west rather than east or north (because that's where you maximise production and make the most money... =)

As for "the idea that it might take more energy to produce a panel than it will produce itself is ridiculous", I didn't say that it did, just that it's return on that energy invested is comparatively poor. You coal analogy is patently wrong though. Depending on which source you go to, coal is anywhere from 30:1 to 50:1 for EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It's cheap to obtain, burn and dispose of the waste, despite being toxic/radioactive.

eg. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

When you talk about solar PV and the energy required to make it, you're not just talking about the production line, you're talking mining the silicon, purifying, the wasted wafers which aren't up to snuff, the cost of the workers and the power that goes in to building, transporting etc, lifetime maintenance, loss of production over time and disposal. The above link puts PV at the low 1.5-3:1 which is well beneath the roughly 7:1 required to sustain our modern society (and does not cover the massive increases in energy demand and consumption from developing countries). And as the author of the article notes, these are unbuffered values. If you add buffering to load shift, the sums get even worse.

"Put simply, if solar PV is such a bad deal, how are they saving me so much money even without any rebates?"

I didn't say solar was a bad deal, I said it's a poor way to reduce carbon pollution. If the electricity company you are connected to is willing to pay high feed in tariffs to you and you save cash, that's great, but that doesn't automagically (intentional typo mean that solar PV is making any sort of serious inroads in to reducing carbon pollution.

If we're going to fix man made climate change, we need to be prepared to pay a far higher cost and worry less about our hip pockets. Nuke might not be economically viable without causing jumps in bills, but in terms of the energy output it provides over it's life time, it is one of the highest returns in energy for the energy invested in building it, paired with very low carbon emissions.

Obviously, the figures on EROEI depend on which article you read, as it's a very complex number to work out (and will always be an approximation), but it's fairly commonly acknowledged by people who do not have a vested interest in solar PV (vs low carbon power sources in general) that PV is a feel good technology that doesn't actually do a hell of a lot in terms of carbon reduction.

Nice typo.

*parody *geeks

A "climate denier" is shorthand for "morons who refuse to acknowledge the scientific reality of man-made climate change either through blind ideological stupidity or because they are sucking oil company cock".

But I'll grant you that it really should have been "climate change denier". I'm sure at this point you will now decide that my one typo invalidates literally millions of man-hours of climate research.

You're right about one thing, we are getting desperate. Everyone should be, because we are fucking ourselves over.

Oops, sorry, my typo. Twice. I'm more familiar with India than West Africa and typed the familar name by mistake Fixed.

Thanks for the info too

Typo in the title; you misspelled "EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS TOY MAKES PERFECT SUBLIME SENSE."

Aw hell. How do I fix a typo in the title? All this work in Laravel is screwing with my spelling.