Odd solar power?

[bpwoods]

Re: Odd solar power?

EJ: Thanks for that. Informative and useful. That PhD thesis. These are usually un-available except within the university where the research was conducted. If you can direct me to access I'd appreciate it. If not, no matter. I am not a particular fan of nuclear - but there are some positive sides to it. Unfortunately it has a very bad reputation and only force majeur is likely to change folks' minds. We'll see. Albert Bartlett might have something interesting to say about the rates of use of a physical (finite) resource. Its not all sweetness and light.

The navy have some nifty 'nukes' (the power engine types) so maybe they will eventually share the technology with the ordinary folk. No need to re-invent an already invented device. That's a pure political decision. I note your enthusiasm - but forgive me if I do not share it (well, not wholeheartedly). I am a scientist and I have this nagging concern about the ability of technology to 'solve' our problems. "There's none so queer as folk" - and therein lies our quandry. Nations will have the edge over states when it becomes a matter of political survival. Large is not better. Cohesion will triumph over diversity. That seems to be the lesson of history.

I agree that we need to get 'religious' about conserving our energies. Here in Europe we have had two historic episodes when it was necessary to 'restrain' ourselves. Sky is still up there! Our current economic downturn (its a regression in some places) should provide another opportunity to see where we can again make reductions. How would it go if households were encouraged to dispose of one energy intensive device? Or even turn off the 'standby' modes. I tried it and I noticed the reduction in my electricity bill (got some domestic hassel though!). Some hard thinking is called for.

Again, I must thank you and your many contributors for improving my knowlwdge and understanding of many complex issues. Best wishes to all.

[BadJuju]

Re: Odd solar power?

Some hard thinking is called for.

I disagree with this. It doesn't take much thinking to see the largest sources of our energy usage: heating and cooling a home and driving vehicles that are not fuel efficient. Up to around 70% of an average home's energy usage goes towards heating and cooling it along with heating water for bathing. One of the biggest things I see going forward will be conservation or switching to more efficient methods of heating/cooling, such as point solutions. Why heat and cool the entire house when you spend most of your time in just a room or two?

[lektrode]

Re: Odd solar power?

this is perhaps the only/first good news about this administration (and our energy sitch overall) that eye have seen to date.

The Obama administration's view on this race and the regulatory trend are unmistakably positive.

Bottom line, within ten years there will be several competing, factory-produced small nuclear plant products, such as those from Hyperion Power Generation, that will be available for under $25 million each. Total average 10 year production cost per kWh will be around $.01 or 1/6 that of nat gas once nat gas prices rise to long-term market levels in line with oil prices.

No surprise that many of Hyperian's initial 100 orders are from the oil industry.

Next generation nuclear, as a low cost form of fixed energy production, will be used to maintain the supply of liquid transportation fuels such as diesel from crude refined from shale, as dwindling oil supplies become more energy-intensive to extract.

apparently there's been a name change

http://www.gen4energy.com/technology/

The Gen4 Module is a next generation design that uses a liquid metal cooled, uranium nitride fueled, fast-spectrum reactor that employs control rods for reactivity control. The reactor has been designed to deliver 70 MW of heat (25 MW of electricity) for a 10-year lifetime, without refueling. Key advantages of the Gen4 Module design are:

• Advanced reactor design – Use of advanced reactor concepts provides for a safer and simpler reactor, elimination of many potential accident scenarios that affect LWRs, and elimination of complex reactor systems.
• Small reactor – A smaller reactor is more appropriately sized for smaller generation requirements, can directly replace existing diesel fueled generators, and requires no upgrade to existing small electricity distribution systems.
• 10-year power module replacement – The Gen4 Module provides 25 MWe continuously for 10 years on its initial fuel load (compared to an 18 to 24 month cycle for current light water reactors). No on-site refueling is required. After 10 years the entire reactor module is replaced.
• Underground containment vault – The reactor is sited in an underground containment vault to provide isolation from the environment, prevent intrusion or tampering, and avoid harm from natural disasters.
• Factory-assembled transportable power modules – Factory assembly allows for standard designs, superior quality control, and faster construction and on-site deployment.

A standardized design will offer several advantages:

• Manufacturing process controls will be uniform and will not vary between units.
• Nuclear fabrication and assembly will be completed at the factory before the unit is shipped, minimizing the nuclear construction capabilities that are necessary on site.
• On site construction activities will be limited to the reactor vault, the non-nuclear systems, placement of the Gen4 Module in the vault, and connection to the Gen4 Module to non-nuclear systems and controls. This will significantly reduce the on-site construction complexity and result in a faster construction schedule.
• Gen4 Energy will provide standard operating procedures, operator training, licensing support, technical support, in-service engineering, and safety analysis, significantly reducing the nuclear expertise and staffing that is required of the owner/operator.

Key material selections include:

• Lead Bismuth Eutectic (LBE) coolant -The core coolant is LBE, which is non-reactive to air and water, with a mixed mean exit temperature of 500C. A solid phase oxygen control system is used to control the oxygen level in the coolant to maintain a protective coating on structural surfaces, limiting corrosion.
• Uranium Nitride (UN) fuel- The fuel consists of 19.75% enriched (non weapons grade) UN pellets contained in clad tubes made of HT-9. These high-temperature ceramic material pellets deter the ability to separate plutonium from spent fuel.
• Stainless Steel structural materials (HT-9 and T-91)
• Quartz radial reflector
• B₄C control rods for reactivity control -There are three independent reactivity shut-down systems in the core: a shutdown rod system composed of six boron carbide (B₄C) rods, a control rod system comprising 12 boron carbide (B₄C) rods and a reserve shutdown system consisting of a central cavity into which B₄C balls may be inserted. Each of the three systems can independently take the core to long-term cold shutdown. The rod shutdown and the ball shutdown systems perform this safety function automatically and instantaneously when triggered.

and there appears to still be a few more hurdles, but whats not to like (sides its still priv held??)

Gen4 Energy Decides to Withdraw Its Pursuit of the DOE SMR Funding Opportunity Announcement

Gen4 Energy will continue company focus on its advanced reactor deployment for remote and diesel powered markets



Gen4 Energy announced today that it has decided not to pursue the recently released DOE Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for Small Modular Reactor Licensing Support Program. The purpose of the FOA was to enter into cost sharing arrangements with companies that have designs that can be “expeditiously licensed and achieve a U.S. Commercial Operation Date (COD) on a domestic site by 2022.” While the FOA was open to any SMR technology, Gen4 Energy concluded that use of well-known Light Water Reactor (LWR) technology of 45 to 300 MW intended for deployment in the USA had a much higher probability of success given the FOA’s stated maximum of two awards.

(and whataya know - an outfit that decides NOT to take gov money? - eye read that as VERY good news indeed)


“We have a unique, next-generation product for a very specific market,” said Bob Prince, CEO of Gen4 Energy. “We have targeted and will continue to target small, remote or off-the-grid markets that tend to rely on diesel power. Gen4 Energy applauds the efforts of the DOE to move domestic SMR technology forward, but our focus will remain on regions and applications most in need of next generation technology.” Prince also said, “The DOE FOA will help move the current LWR SMR market forward which can provide an economic energy alternative for the United States. We also look forward to DOE’s efforts on additional domestic support for Generation IV nuclear power technologies.”
“While we will not pursue the Licensing FOA, we are excited to continue our work under our Memorandum of Agreement with DOE to deploy our advanced reactor at Savannah River,” said David Carlson, COO and Chief Nuclear Officer at Gen4 Energy. “In addition, we have responded to the DOE’s recent RFI (DE-SOL-0003674) for advanced reactors which is directly applicable to our initiatives.”
Gen4 Energy, based in Denver, Colorado, was founded in 2007, and is working in collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory, under the DOE Technology Transfer program, to develop an advanced design nuclear reactor referred to as the Gen4 Module (G4M). The G4M produces 25 MW of electricity to power remote mining or oil and gas operations, large government complexes, and isolated and island communities. The design intent for the G4M is to provide safe and reliable power that is available 24/7, the generation of which emits no greenhouse gasses, and to operate for 10 years without refueling. It is planned to be manufactured in a factory, transported to the installation site completely sealed, and after its useful life replaced with an entirely new power module.

but this was perhaps the best news on day (esp after the dip a lil while ago and i doubled down ;)




MUCHOS MAHALOS MR J!!
(and JB, et al)

this just made my weekend (after watching the yellow stuff and miners get shafted again today, never mind AG, now off over 2.4% on the day? glad i decided NOT go back in to that hole...)

[rogermexico]

Re: Odd solar power?

Seems like a buggywhip vs. auto argument.

Yes, buggy whips versus autos powered by wood fired boilers when there are only dirt roads in the early 18th century. Buggy whip wins, until petroleum and paved roads come along.

What is the "petroleum and paved roads" or]f wind and solar? Let me know when you've found them, because I don't think we have yet.

[rogermexico]

Re: Odd solar power?

What you observe is actually showing how small a change so many people in the USA need to make to dramatically cut their consumption (and costs)...without materially reducing their standard of living, or suffering some sort of "hardship". Long before we all end up jammed 6-to-a-carpool in a hydrogen powered jelly-bean, the dually pick-ups will have been traded for a much more efficient and just as comfortable diesel sedan, and USA oil consumption will have continued on the long term, slow decline trend it has been on since 2005.

+1

Every time I hear people say the US will suffer the most with PCO, I say, no, the countries who have already wrung out all their inefficiencies and have no frivolous uses to cut and WHO HAVE NO OIL AT ALL, are the ones that will suffer.

Yes, Japan has oil use per gdp 60% or so of ours. They also are not food self-sufficient, and they have NO oil, and they have decided to shut down their nukes (!). What slack do they have to cut in oil use?

The US uses 19M bpd and produces only 6. The GOOD news is that there is no nation with more slack in consumption of liquid fuels to take in. All those dually trucks and 18 year old kids burning rubber in my downtown in jacked up 4wd V8 fords with stickers of Calvin pissing on a chevy emblem. Those are all good signs! They are signs that we can cut demand hugely without actually suffering. If everywhere you looked there was a prius with 6 people in it, then that would be proof we are screwed. Instead, the waste you see is evidence that out real needs are nowhere near what we are consuming. Look at a graph sometime of passenger miles per capita since, say, 1960. I'm too lazy to look one up to link, but I think this datum is about twice what it was back then. Does anyone think if we only drove as much per person as 50 years ago that would be like mad max?

Combine decreasing passenger miles per capita to non-frivolous levels with the fuel mileage of turbocharged 4-bangers and leaving the trucks parked unless you are deer hunting of towing your boat, and we could cut liquid fuel consumption by half. Buying less crap delivered because fedex charges $25 for a standard package will help cut out frivolous truck and air freight.

The big changes coming with PCO are political and economic. These have social ramifications and require some big adjustments, but no one alive right now is going to be getting around when they need to in anything but what we now think of as a car burning gas or diesel. No rickshaws or oxen-drawn mercedes.

[BadJuju]

Re: Odd solar power?

+1

Every time I hear people say the US will suffer the most with PCO, I say, no, the countries who have already wrung out all their inefficiencies and have no frivolous uses to cut and WHO HAVE NO OIL AT ALL, are the ones that will suffer.

Absolutely, my friend. That's exactly how I see it. America has the ability to become really lean and mean when push comes to shove. And with the vast abundance of resources that it possesses, America stands poised to do quite well with regards to PCO. The initial shock may be difficult for people to grasp, but I think, like me, they will adapt with the times. And it will just seem natural to them as it does to me.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Odd solar power?

Absolutely, my friend. That's exactly how I see it. America has the ability to become really lean and mean when push comes to shove. And with the vast abundance of resources that it possesses, America stands poised to do quite well with regards to PCO. The initial shock may be difficult for people to grasp, but I think, like me, they will adapt with the times. And it will just seem natural to them as it does to me.

I'm really with you guys on this. I can remember the 70's, and people changed a lot. The county arranged a car pool system where you call in and get paired with other people with nearby destinations. My college friends had endless arguments about whether it was more economical to buy a fuel thrifty Honda or repair a 2nd hand detroit guzzler. EJ mentioned that his honda actually appreciated in nominal dollars. There was a waiting list for Toyotas. Already the Mini's and minute Fiats are getting popular.

[shiny!]

Re: Odd solar power?

+1

Every time I hear people say the US will suffer the most with PCO, I say, no, the countries who have already wrung out all their inefficiencies and have no frivolous uses to cut and WHO HAVE NO OIL AT ALL, are the ones that will suffer.

Yes, Japan has oil use per gdp 60% or so of ours. They also are not food self-sufficient, and they have NO oil, and they have decided to shut down their nukes (!). What slack do they have to cut in oil use?

The US uses 19M bpd and produces only 6. The GOOD news is that there is no nation with more slack in consumption of liquid fuels to take in. All those dually trucks and 18 year old kids burning rubber in my downtown in jacked up 4wd V8 fords with stickers of Calvin pissing on a chevy emblem. Those are all good signs! They are signs that we can cut demand hugely without actually suffering. If everywhere you looked there was a prius with 6 people in it, then that would be proof we are screwed. Instead, the waste you see is evidence that out real needs are nowhere near what we are consuming. Look at a graph sometime of passenger miles per capita since, say, 1960. I'm too lazy to look one up to link, but I think this datum is about twice what it was back then. Does anyone think if we only drove as much per person as 50 years ago that would be like mad max?

Combine decreasing passenger miles per capita to non-frivolous levels with the fuel mileage of turbocharged 4-bangers and leaving the trucks parked unless you are deer hunting of towing your boat, and we could cut liquid fuel consumption by half. Buying less crap delivered because fedex charges $25 for a standard package will help cut out frivolous truck and air freight.

The big changes coming with PCO are political and economic. These have social ramifications and require some big adjustments, but no one alive right now is going to be getting around when they need to in anything but what we now think of as a car burning gas or diesel. No rickshaws or oxen-drawn mercedes.

But when will the message about conservation sink in? For most people, PCO isn't even on the radar. I see leftist "greenies" being scoffed at by rightist "there's plenty of oil for everyone forever" types, with most people in the middle so overwhelmed with day-to-day living that they aren't thinking about it at all. Instead of conserving oil now, while we're ahead, the waste will continue until it can't.

It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark. It'd be nice if everyone in the country would start conserving now in big ways before we're in crisis. That's not happening.

Every oil crisis since the 70's brings conservation to the forefront. There's a brief spate of people buying "economy cars", then when oil prices come down, the auto manufacturers go back to marketing giant trucks and SUVs... and people scarf them up like M&Ms. They're never told it's going to happen again, just like they're never told that their retirement is invested in a FIRE-driven bubble machine that's going to bleed them dry. I used to think that people were unwitting dupes and made the mistake of trying to help them. Then I realized: most people are frightened of the truth like to be lied to.

I've suggested conservation measures at my office. My boss flat-out isn't interested. He firmly believes that shale oil will make us 100% energy independent within ten years. I go to work to find the door open and the air conditioner running, lights on in empty offices, monitors, shredders and printers left on nights and weekends, drawing power all the time. One employee puts 150 miles on his SUV every day while doing property inspections. Multiply this situation by millions.

[BadJuju]

Re: Odd solar power?

But when will the message about conservation sink in? For most people, PCO isn't even on the radar. I see leftist "greenies" being scoffed at by rightist "there's plenty of oil for everyone forever" types, with most people in the middle so overwhelmed with day-to-day living that they aren't thinking about it at all. Instead of conserving oil now, while we're ahead, the waste will continue until it can't.

When reality dawns on them in the form of higher and higher prices. And to be fair, per capita energy usage has been steadily decreasing in the US for over a decade now with the largest spike occurring after the 2008 AFC. I think September oil consumption levels were at an 18-year low or something like that. The great thing about conservation, shiny, is that it doesn't require new technologies or new infrastructure. It is something that can be done immediately with great effect. What your boss is doing is repulsive and ridiculous and it is unfortunately an attitude shared by a lot of people; however, it also means that there is a lot of room out there for cutting back on consumption. There is just so much excess that needs to be wrung out.

Anyway, PCO will have more an effect on countries without oil, which is not a situation that America has to contend with as it has some of the most plentiful reserves in the world. America simply needs to rein in its extraordinary consumption of resources.

What you need to be worrying about is adapting to those circumstances now so you'll be well ahead of the curve

[EJ]

Re: Odd solar power?

+1

Every time I hear people say the US will suffer the most with PCO, I say, no, the countries who have already wrung out all their inefficiencies and have no frivolous uses to cut and WHO HAVE NO OIL AT ALL, are the ones that will suffer.

Yes, Japan has oil use per gdp 60% or so of ours. They also are not food self-sufficient, and they have NO oil, and they have decided to shut down their nukes (!). What slack do they have to cut in oil use?

The US uses 19M bpd and produces only 6. The GOOD news is that there is no nation with more slack in consumption of liquid fuels to take in. All those dually trucks and 18 year old kids burning rubber in my downtown in jacked up 4wd V8 fords with stickers of Calvin pissing on a chevy emblem. Those are all good signs! They are signs that we can cut demand hugely without actually suffering. If everywhere you looked there was a prius with 6 people in it, then that would be proof we are screwed. Instead, the waste you see is evidence that out real needs are nowhere near what we are consuming. Look at a graph sometime of passenger miles per capita since, say, 1960. I'm too lazy to look one up to link, but I think this datum is about twice what it was back then. Does anyone think if we only drove as much per person as 50 years ago that would be like mad max?

Combine decreasing passenger miles per capita to non-frivolous levels with the fuel mileage of turbocharged 4-bangers and leaving the trucks parked unless you are deer hunting of towing your boat, and we could cut liquid fuel consumption by half. Buying less crap delivered because fedex charges $25 for a standard package will help cut out frivolous truck and air freight.

The big changes coming with PCO are political and economic. These have social ramifications and require some big adjustments, but no one alive right now is going to be getting around when they need to in anything but what we now think of as a car burning gas or diesel. No rickshaws or oxen-drawn mercedes.

Correct. It's not like there are no precedents. Here's what happened last time, before OPEC started to recycle oil export earnings into long-term UST:

MONEY: The Petrocurrency Peril
TIME Magazine
June 17, 1974

The oil-supply emergency ended this spring with the lifting of the Arab petroleum embargo, but a different kind of world oil crisis is approaching with onrushing speed. It is a potential money crisis caused by the quadrupling of oil prices orchestrated last fall and winter by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The threat that these increases pose to world financial mechanisms absorbed much of the attention of bankers and government officials from the U.S., Europe and Japan who gathered in Williamsburg, Va., last week, but their deliberations produced no clear solution.

The dimensions of the threat are simply stated. This year the twelve OPEC countries stand to run up a trade surplus of $65 billion, v. a mere $7 billion last year, and the money will come out of the financial hide of the rest of the world. Underdeveloped countries that do not happen to be oil producers, such as India, Kenya and Bangladesh, could run up a combined trade deficit of $20 billion or more—if they can beg or borrow the money to pay for oil. The industrialized nations of the non-Communist world, which enjoyed a combined trade surplus of $12 billion last year, likely will swing this year to a deficit of around $40 billion.

Costly Debts. Financing such enormous deficits puts a heavy strain on the Western banking system. Already, many European nations are having to borrow at interest rates of 10% or so to pay for their oil. Though most have good credit, Italy recently had trouble raising $1.2 billion; it wound up borrowing from no fewer than 110 banks. Franz Aschinger, economic adviser of the Swiss Bank Corp., warns that over the next eight years "the accumulated debt tof the industrialized oil-burning nations] would be $400 billion with annual interest payments of $30 billion."

European bankers worry that some day one government, most likely Italy's, will default on paying interest on its loans, putting several banks under and setting off a Continent-wide banking panic. Even if that is avoided, the most strapped nations will be sorely tempted to cut their imports of nonpetroleum goods so that they can save cash to pay for the oil, a strategy that could cripple world trade. Italy in April did in fact clamp restrictions on many non-oil imports, to the anger of its eight partners in the European Common Market, who fortunately did not follow suit.

The solution is to somehow "recycle" the oil money—or, more bluntly, get it back from the oil producers in the form of purchases, loans and investments. It is fairly easy in the case of four oil producers, Algeria, Indonesia, Iran and Venezuela, which have large populations and ambitious industrialization plans. They can be counted on to spend much of their wealth buying goods and services from the U.S., Europe and Japan. But the richest oil producers, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Libya, have small populations and preindustrial economies; they can spend on imports only a minor part of the $100 billion oil revenues that they will collect this year.

So far, the Arabs have been reluctant to put their excess cash into long-term investments, where it would help stabilize world finance. Western stocks and bonds, they believe, do not pay enough to be a good hedge against skyrocketing inflation, and real estate holdings could be seized by Western governments. Instead, the Arabs have been putting most of their money into the shortest-term investments possible: U.S. Treasury bills, New York and London bank certificates of deposit, and Eurodollar bank accounts—many of them "call" accounts from which the money may be withdrawn instantly without advance notice. That is a form of recycling that does little good; banks are understandably reluctant to make long-term loans out of money that may be swiftly snatched away. Indeed, the Arab strategy carries its own danger: that billions in Arab cash switching suddenly out of one currency into another could set off an international monetary crisis.

Several ways out of the bind are under consideration. H. Johannes Witteveen, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is setting up an "oil facility" that would accept deposits from oil producers and lend the money at bargain rates of about 7% interest to nations that have trouble paying for petroleum. Unfortunately, he has collected pledges for only $3 billion in deposits, an amount far too small to be of much help.

Some European countries want to quadruple the $42.22-an-ounce "official" price of the gold stored in their central banks, putting it about in line with the free-market price of gold. That would in effect give Italy more than $10 billion, and France almost $13 billion, of new reserves to cover oil deficits. The U.S. opposes the idea, fearing that it might help restore gold to an unwarranted special position in world monetary affairs. Some highly technical compromises have been suggested that would hold the official price in theory while allowing countries in effect to pay for oil with revalued gold—a sensible idea.

The best solution of all might be for the Arabs to launch a massive program of loans and aid to poor countries that have no oil. The poor countries could then build up their economies with heavy purchases of industrial goods and machinery from the U.S., Europe and Japan. But the Arabs so far have shown " little interest in helping the Third World. Perhaps that attitude will change, and the reluctance to make long-term investments in the industrialized world will diminish as the Arabs become more sophisticated in handling immense wealth. The question is whether a change in attitudes will come quickly enough to avoid bankruptcy for some of the Arabs' best customers.

[shiny!]

Re: Odd solar power?

When reality dawns on them in the form of higher and higher prices. And to be fair, per capita energy usage has been steadily decreasing in the US for over a decade now with the largest spike occurring after the 2008 AFC. I think September oil consumption levels were at an 18-year low or something like that. The great thing about conservation, shiny, is that it doesn't require new technologies or new infrastructure. It is something that can be done immediately with great effect. What your boss is doing is repulsive and ridiculous and it is unfortunately an attitude shared by a lot of people; however, it also means that there is a lot of room out there for cutting back on consumption. There is just so much excess that needs to be wrung out.

Anyway, PCO will have more an effect on countries without oil, which is not a situation that America has to contend with as it has some of the most plentiful reserves in the world. America simply needs to rein in its extraordinary consumption of resources.

What you need to be worrying about is adapting to those circumstances now so you'll be well ahead of the curve

Every barrel of oil saved now is one for the future. Every barrel wasted now is unavailable for the future. What makes me mad and sad is how much is being wasted now that can never be regained.

Personally I've spent a lot of money to conserve, considering my income. Switched to LED lights. Replaced the insulation under my mobile home to insulate my water pipes and prevent A/C and heat loss. Installed a new A/C-heat pump system two years ago, set warmer in the summer and cooler in the winter- as much as my health will allow. Induction hot plate and countertop convection oven for cooking. Low-power computer and monitor. Plugged every device possible into power strips that are shut off when devices are not in use. Replaced the old CRT TV with the most energy-efficient LED/LCD TV I could find. Planted a grape vine at the west end of the house to give it afternoon shade. Energy-efficient windows and draperies. Insulative barrier paint on the exterier, elastomeric roof coating and insulative paint on the roof. Shade cloth outside wherever possible. Bought a 2012 Hyundai Accent and only commute two days a week. Try to do shopping on the way home from work.

The only thing I can do to conserve more (besides die) is move... to some magical place with a low cost of living, that doesn't require A/C or heat to survive, that has adequate water and energy resources, jobs and great mass transit.

Where is that place, BTW? This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Odd solar power?

Where is that place, BTW? This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

Oakland.

[shiny!]

Re: Odd solar power?

Oakland.

I love the Bay Area. The climate is perfect. But according to Bankrate's cost-of-living calculator, moving to Oakland would require a 44% increase in income to maintain the same (meager) lifestyle I have now. Apartment rents are double what they are in the Phoenix metro area.

The Austin/San Marcos, TX area OTOH is 7.37% cheaper than here.

[Polish_Silver]

EJ and Time vs "Rollover" the movie

Correct. It's not like there are no precedents.


Time:

So far, the Arabs have been reluctant to put their excess cash into long-term investments, where it would help stabilize world finance.
. . .
Instead, the Arabs have been putting most of their money into the shortest-term investments possible: U.S. Treasury bills, New York and London bank certificates of deposit, and Eurodollar bank accounts—many of them "call" accounts from which the money may be withdrawn instantly without advance notice. . . .
Indeed, the Arab strategy carries its own danger: that billions in Arab cash switching suddenly out of one currency into another could set off an international monetary crisis.

That is the basis for the 1983 film "Rollover" with Jane Fonda, reviewed elsewhere.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Odd solar power?

that has adequate water and energy resources, jobs and great mass transit.

Where is that place, BTW? This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

Great mass transit and low living cost do not go together, anywhere. Mass transit like a subway requires a high population density, which means high rent. (If your willing to occupy a bedroom in a shared apartment, you can cut your living cost while enjoying the mass transity. But food is always more expensive in big city, and wages are a bit higher in compensation.