I have no issue with it taking a reasonable time. But this complaint is now decades old. They've had government handouts to provide better rural access based on fees for the entirety of the century so far IIRC or close enough.
And we've been paying the fees for that long. So if that money hasn't been used for what I paid for I want it back.

Have you looked into the varied ways to store the excess generated during the day to use at night?

Mycroft

There are also states that have laws to specifically cover paycheck debit cards that take some or all of the crap fees out.

Mycroft

You mean like children?

Mycroft

Because they are two different things mostly. Also in most cases if a witness claims 5th amendment right to silence how, without violating the 5th, can you know whether or not their testimony would reveal some crime on their part or not. Barring a very solid grant immunity from ANY crime their own said testimony may reveal you can't and so the same right effectively applies.
    Also many jurisdictions do protect the sources of reporters given the valuable service of exposing to the public corruption and such in high places they could not provide as easily without it.

Mycroft.

"So we just buy your network, or at least a large enough interest in it to replace whomever we need to to make things happen. Our Way"

Mycroft

Both of those have much higher regulatory costs than their subsidies, though my understanding is that coal is a better proposition that way.
  Which is sad because nuclear with modern designs is far better than solar or coal. Coal actually puts more radiation in the environment and solar produces a lot more toxic waste compared to many designs that effectively recycle their nuclear waste down to a tiny fraction of older designs.

Mycroft

The toxic byproducts of solar are pretty bad as well, further lessening their value and "green" cred.

Mycroft

It was sooner than twenty years ago, probably close to 8-10 IIRC. I looked into it because my dad asked me to as he was thinking about putting solar on his roof. At the time they were still not (as a practical matter based on the real world, not a panels theoretical output under ideal conditions) not there. Theoretically in ideal conditions they were close, something like 95% if you used sun tracking near the equator with defect free cells that never degraded faster than expected and never had any cloud cover.
We found he could spend about 6500 to save about 7800 over 10 years if he got all the tax breaks and bought the cheapest reputable brand he could and did all the installation himself. Or he could put in a 4 hours overtime a week for 3 months and make more.
The horrible toxic wastes that making the cells generate were just salt on the wound for him.

Mycroft

Actually they cost more than that. But many governments subsidize their production and/or purchase by the end user.
    If they really have gotten significantly cheaper (actual costs, not post subsidy) than they produce over their lifetime in the last few years I've missed it (not really looked into it in abt 5 years).

Mycroft

Sorry about that. Was late and I missed a stupid typo.

Mycroft

So a typo invalidates the whole statements meaning, especial one so obvious in intent? Based on your lack of reasoning skills I'm just going to write you off period.

Mycroft

No. I mean the amount of energy it takes for a solar cell to be made is more than it will produce in it's lifetime.
    It's pretty obvious what I meant. If not sorry.

Mycroft

It'll be a while, it currently take more energy to make a solar panel than it can generate in it's lifespan and costs more than coal or nuclear without the subsidies.
And that's not even counting that solar panel production has so much toxic waste associated that it's one of the worst.
That said I do like the potential if we ever find a way to make solar cleaner and cost effective without government (tax payers) money artificially sustaining what would otherwise be an economic failure.

Mycroft

It can, only problem is last time I checked (a few years ago though) it took about 6 TW of energy to produce solar cells that could deliver that much energy. It also produced more and more highly toxic waste than the same in coal which in turn produces more radioactive contamination than nuclear, which in modern designs is even better and much safer.

Mycroft.