Infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 10%? That's not true. The distribution network is the part that can't be scaled, but it can also be reused for either source, so it doesn't double in cost.

No, I'm saying infrastructure cost for 100% is the same as infrastructure cost for 100%. You can't build 10% as much fossil fuel infrastructure and expect it to carry 100% of the load when solar isn't working. And obviously I'm talking about generation here, not distribution.

African countries are some of the poorest on the planet. It takes a very large capital investment, in addition to skilled labor, to energize a nation. They often have other bigger issues to deal with. It's often way cheaper to pay for humans to mine coal, produce charcoal, extract oil (not uncommonly a private company - or a country like China - extracting the resources and making a big profit, or giving a loan with a huge interest payment).

But let's look at a single off-grid DIY example. First you need the expertise to hook it up. If you have the skill, it still isn't cheap if your economy is weak. It requires saving money for a capital purchase, something people all around the world struggle with. And when there are payment programs, they're often exploitative.

It's not like people in Africa aren't aware solar power exists. If it was cheap and easy, everyone would have done it already.

It depends on how fat you are. Whales have blubber too.

This isn't the counter you think it is. It's too much to expect existing behemoths to reshape their orgs substantially on a quick enough timeline. The gains will be first seen in new companies and new organizations, and they will be able to stay flat a longer and outcompete the behemoths.

On the interchange in question, they can always redo how the merge is designed in the same space. There is no excuse for that.

Please see:

> It's not a lack of knowledge by Caltrans or Santa Clara County's congestion management agency that is keeping that interchange as-is. Rather, it's the physical constraints of a nearby airport (so no room for flyovers), a nearby river (so probably no tunneling), and surrounding private landowners and train tracks.

The most recent budget estimate is $1bn for any changes to this interchange

$1B to avoid ending a lane before the intersection. Insane.

Why can't Gooapple suggest this today?

It seems that they could, but don't.

It does look much more like a revenue play. The data already exists, but not from the conglomorates and not as uniformly formatted.

Indeed why would you even need this or a poll? The crash statistics already exist. What's the purpose of a proxy predictor unless the label is something too low signal to detect but may become a big issue later. The only such case is a new road that recently opened.

>unless the label is something too low signal to predict

>Also, crashes are statistically rare events on arterial and local roads, so it can take years to accumulate sufficient data to establish a valid safety profile for a specific road segment.

That is exactly what this article is about.

Ok but where is the public Maps overlay for this? Is it available?

Google is offering this as part of the geospatial platform that they market to governments for huge $$$ so I don't think you are going to get it for free any time soon. Maybe limited access if you have an Earth Engine developer account?

Waze has this, and it works off of the same underlying data IIRC. It pops up a "history of accidents" note.