Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Rams most likely to go to L.A.
don bauder except that won't happen. Each NFL team plays one one Thursday night game and they alternate playing at home one year and on the road the next. I would imagine that the team going to play in London for a Thursday game would have their bye the week before, giving them plenty of time between games both the week before and the week after. And don't forget, the team in London has to play on the road also. Rather than having to deal with int'l travel once, like the visiting team, they would have to deal with it for half of their game.— October 23, 2014 8:20 a.m.
Rick Roberts goes on anti-Islam rant
silverlover, what about all of the "christian extremists" and their hodgepodge of anarchist and white supremacist politics dedicated to white Christian activism? Religious extremism taken to potentially lethal ends.— October 22, 2014 10:55 p.m.
Rick Roberts goes on anti-Islam rant
The only thing religious about Bundy is his declaration that his is a a spiritual battle and the almighty told him to fight a civil war against the federal government. To him, it's all about God vs. government. Or so he claims.— October 22, 2014 10:49 p.m.
Dueling sanity experts expected
One man's crazy is another man's genius.— October 22, 2014 10:40 p.m.
Rams most likely to go to L.A.
You might want to read these: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000366012/ar… http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/american-football/2959… Since it's not much more than a couple of hours longer from NY to London than it is from NY to the west coast, I wouldn't think that jet lag would be that big a deal. Teams that currently play in London have a bye the following week. I would imagine that the NFL would work the schedule so that a team traveling to London would play on Thursday the week before and would travel a couple of days earlier than normal. Personally, I would think that the 45% tax rate and the extremely high cost of living would be of more concern.— October 22, 2014 10:40 p.m.
Rams most likely to go to L.A.
I am doubting the Chargers will be moving, because it's already been said that they will receive a large cut of the relocation fee pie to appease them and their complaint about losing market share. That means more cash in the pockets of the Spanos clan sooner rather than later.— October 20, 2014 8:54 p.m.
No nuclear emergency sirens for you
captd/founder 1, 2: all well and good. 3. I guess it depends on what your definition of pencil out means, in terms of ROI over how long a term. I view it this way. Solar pv will never be free.While solar PV will continue to decrease in price over time, though I doubt the pace it of reductions will continue to be as steep as they are now, the biggest challenge at this time is not how cheaply panels can be produced, but how to make panels more efficient. The most efficient panels are about 21% efficient, while most are around15% efficient. That will likely result in more expensive panels, with a cost per Kwh drop due to less panels being needed. When you factor in the future drop in gov't subsidies and the increase in the price of electricity, there will be a tipping point where it becomes a zero sum game. At some point, the drop in the cost of installing will be negated by the loss of subsidies and the rate increases incurred over the time before the system installed. IN some cases, age may be a factor. For example, had Don Bauder installed a system when he first moved into his palatial estate in Colorado, the investment would probably have been worth it. However, even allowing for at least several years longer than normal life expectancy, it's unlikely that he would see a return on investment. I don't know if that scenario applies to you or not. Sometimes it just boils down to available funds. All of that being said however, I was merely pointing out that the first line of your post indicated that the subject was residential solar, thereby leaving one to assume the remainder of the post also was about residential solar, while the primary topic of the article you linked was about utility generated solar and that the author, whose name you included is not a renewable energy guy, he's a corporate money guy. As you said, expanding the conversation, by adding more complete and accurate information.— October 20, 2014 6 p.m.
No nuclear emergency sirens for you
captd/founder you have to do more than just cherry pick when you read an article like this. In that same article, the same guy, George Bilicic, also made these comments. 1. "As a source of PEAK(my emphasis) energy photovoltaics are more flexible and cost-competitive than conventional technologies." 2. He said the same study "questioned the value of subsidies for homeowners who put solar panels on their roof, saying such subsidies may be distorting the energy planning process" and "Relative to utility scale renewable, it’s a high-cost product." 3. "Without subsidies residential-scale solar photovoltaic solar panels remain considerably more expensive than utility-scale solar." 4. "large-scale generation is still more manageable and cost-competitive for base-load generation." and 5. "natural gas power generation will be a transition source, between coal or nuclear and renewables" Keep this in mind. This guy is not a renewable energy expert. He is an investment banker. He heads their investment banking business and global efforts in power, energy and infrastructure. HIs focus has been on on mergers and acquisitions. I've read alot of his stuff at Lazard and he's all about telling them where to make money. And if you read what he said, he's not talking about residential solar, he's talking about utility generated solar and how utilities can make money generating their own. BTW, since you never answered my question, I'll ask again. Since you're such a proponent of residential solar, have you installed it yet. The last I recall, a couple of yrs ago, you said you hadn't because SDG&E wasn't paying enough for the power going back into the grid.— October 19, 2014 8:27 p.m.
You’re on notice, SDG&E
captd/founder, Have you installed solar yet??— October 15, 2014 4:09 p.m.
Corruption charges be damned
I don't really favor a side other than to say that reducing GHG emissions is imperative. And of course, for every person who favors one side of the equation, there's someone who favors the other side. For example, in that same article several others voiced the support of the measure. In any event, the point is mute. The measure failed and AB32 has been in effect for a while. Of note is the fact that while Stewart talked of job losses, he didn't distinguish between jobs lost due to the recession and those that may have been lost die to SB32. At the time of that article, May of 2010, California's unemployment rate was 12.6 percent. The figures for August place the rate at 7.4 percent.— October 12, 2014 10:33 a.m.