24 April 2007

on a similar note

so, in the same vein as my last post, and semi inspired by the question posed by my Aussie heart throb Steph, i have a confession to make. This past week, I have become a complacent whacker. Every day this week I have had the urge to snap one off, but at the same time, just didn't feel like it. I have had to talk myself into jerking off only to suddenly have to urinate, or some other form of something or other that would make me lose the urge. I have never wanted to jerk off so bad, and yet not want to, in the same thought so bad in my life. Why does the thought of having so much fun with myself make me so... ... bored? Any ladies out there in blog land want to make a fat man happy for a night? dear god this is sad...

and some links

Ahh, if only they'd have seen the inherent evil in pee wee. (trailer mash up)

chuck woolery loves your gay last name and he WILL call you out on it.


joe said...

Welcome to my world, Chudster.

Scooter said...

Good lord, the man is 26... has he never heard of legally changing his name? Hell, move to England, Where his last name will mean a cigarette.

What a moron.

As to the whacking, well... uh... have you tried Crisco and the other hand while blindfolded?

Kristin said...

Poor Chud. That's so wrong. Wrong, I say. Wrong.

Drunken Chud said...

i'm tellin ya joe. it's no good man. no good.

scooter, i can't even imagine the teasing he got in school. i'm sure at this point, he's heard it all and would just rather keep the name, so he can torture his kids with. or even, change the pronunciation. no sir, it's pronounced "fajoe".

i know kristin, i know. on so many levels. so wrong.

Stickler said...

Chud have your ever thought about a prostitute? I'm being serious...ok really i'm not...Have you seen "the bet" episode of seinfeld?

Drunken Chud said...

stick, i'm not lying when i say i have thought about a pro. I'm also not lying when i say i have set a the date of june 20th as the latest date i will consider such an option. otherwise... i will drink myself into a coma. and, no, i have never seen the "bet" episode, nor any other. seinfeld is unfunny, and observational humor is lost on me as it is often nearsighted and lacks logic. sorry, i really hate seinfeld.

Stickler said...

Then we can't be best buds...but I think you would love "The Bet" episode!

NAME: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater said...

I've had those moments where I really have to talk myself into burping the worm, and it can be a little strange trying to seduce yourself. However, when, minutes later, I'm fast asleep, I'm glad I'm a slut.

zen wizard said...

Clearly, we must save your energy for more important tasks, and this daily onanistic ritual is a caloric expenditure of the more mundane variety.

May I suggest an Oriental massage parlor that specializes in, ahem, "happy endings"?

Scooter said...

Ok, thirty bucks a month. At the current rate of .096 cents a kilowatthour, that means you use 313 kilowatthours a month. So, that comes down to About ten and and a half Kilowatthours a day.

That's 11 solar panels. Not seventeen, not twenty. You would still have the base price of 3,000 dollars for the first panel and the inverter.

However, to get to 36 percent of your power consumption, you would only need four solar panels. That's one new panel every six months for eighteen months, or three in a year and a half.

Thirty six percent of 30 bucks is ten dollars and eighty cents. Or you save thirty six cents a day.

That might not sound like much, but those panels are independent of rising grid prices. And good for at least 25 years.

After only two years, you have hit thirty six percent, and in another year, you'll hit forty eight. By then, you'll be saving 15 bucks a month, and probably more, because this is 2010, and you are probably paying 13 or 14 cents a kilowatthour.

By now, you can probably install a new panel every three months. That means in 15 months, you will be selling all of your power consumption to the grid. So, 313 kilowatthours a month at, let's say 15 cents a kilowatthour comes out to saving 47 dollars a month.

Now, your costs have been the 2,000 dollar inverter and the 11 panels, each at 750 dollars, which comes out to 8,250 dollars. The total is 10,250 dollars.

10,250 / 47 equals 218 months, or eighteen years until you see a profit... if grid prices stay at 15 cents a kilowatthour. Which they wont. Seeing as each panel lasts for 25 years, at least, and you had the forethought to put them in at stages, your oldest panel will wear out almost four years before your youngest panel.

And this time, you don't need to buy an inverter, and have seven years of pure profit to subsidize the replacement. Seven years at 47 dollars a month is a little less than four grand.

Stop trying to piss in the pool, Chud; I'll catch you, every time.

Drunken Chud said...

first of all, reply to me on your blog you backbite. second of all, you have failed again, you do not have 7 years of pure profit. you have failed business math.

if tom is paying $30/month for electricity, then pays $3000 for an inverter and a panel and is now saving $3 month on his bill, that would take around 1000 months to have the panel pay for itself. if after 6 months (saving of 18 dollars, total electrical expenditure of $162) tom pays $750 for another panel for a net savings of 6 dollars/month tom is actually at this point $3,732 in the red (not counting his electricity bill he still needs to pay. in 6 more monts after he has saved a whopping $36 and payed $144 he spends $750 more for a total net (not operating) debt of $4446. in 6 more months he's saving 9 dollars a month and decideds to spend another 750... you get where i'm going with this?

in no 6 month span is the total savings going to be greater than 180 dollars. which means you are never digging out of the hole. your savings are constantly going to recoup the costs of the pannels. after you get all 11 in as you stated you have a net capital loss of 10,250.

anyhow,in this, you have a time frame of 4 years and 3 months with a graduated savings rate of around 3 bucks every six months till finally getting to 100% savings. so, by the end of your time frame, you've recouped $1286 bucks in the cost of the panels. $10250-$1286= $8964. now, here is your math gets shady. you use the figure of $47/month to sell back. yet, the panels were installed to produce electricity for my consumption of around $30/month. so the actual amount i'm selling back would be $17/month SINCE I'M USING THE REST OF THE POWER!

so, now lets revisit the revised math $8,964/17= 527 or 44 years to actually pay back the equipment cost. yes, you are in fact "saving" $30/month since you are completely off the grid, but that is in no way profit. as it is a no longer a bill. it is simply less outgo. however, after 44 years, yes, it will be pure profit. though, by that time you;ll have replaced all the panels at least once, and be looking down the barrel of replacing them again... so... good luck on seeing profits in your lifetime.

and EVEN if i accepted the $47 dollars income as cannon, lets look at that. with your 4 year 3 month time table to install, your $47 "income" leaves you with a total time of around 20 years and 3 months till the break even point. which leaves you with a realistic time frame of 4yrs 9 months till the first panel should fail. at this point you should have a profit of $2,679. the first panel would cost $750 to replace. however, the next panels would only dent your padding by $468 ea. as the 6 months up to each one allows you earn $282. so, after replacing the first 5 in 2 1/2 years you will have spent $2622. now, your $57 dollars will be gone in the next 6 months. so, after replacing panel number 6 you will be $339 in the hole.

then you stepped up the time frame for the next 5, which means each one will cost you $609 each. which means at the end of the 4yr. 3 month replacement timeframe you're now $3,384 in the red again. which will take you 6 more years to recoup.

so, to recap, using your math 4yrs 3 months to get up and going. 16 yrs on top of that till you start seeing "profit" then a 4 yr. nine month frame till the replacement period of 4 yrs 3 months then another 6 years to recoup those losses. so, 35 yrs. 3 months till you can see any true monetary benefit from the panels. all of this is of course barring any equipment failure etc. by the way, when year 50 comes around, you'll have a profit account of $8,319 and a replacement cost of $8,250. so... after 50 years you will have a profit of $69. yeah... i wouldn't use the money angle as an argument there scooter.

so a total investment of $26750 and a net return in 50 years of $69... that's a 0.26% return, or 0.0052% APY. wow. you've convinced me. don't tell me not to pee in the pool, cuz then you make me shit in the pool.

Scooter said...

What are you, Ronald Reagan? Eat your Voodoo economics in another restaurant. The base cost is 3,000 dollars. Putting aside 3,000 dollars is not impossible. You can save that, or simply eat that.

Then, saving 750 dollars over six months is not impossible. You can use your lowered outgo to amortize how much you have to save over six months.

After 25 years, there is the likely chance that solar panels will either cost less, or 750 dollars will go farther.

Please tell me you don't buy cars on payment plans...

joe said...

To tap back to the main topic of this post, I just had a conversation about this the other day with my friend Matt.

I think everyone has bored of it. I blame the media over-saturating the stimuli.

Drunken Chud said...

scooter. i replied on YOUR BLOG! quit hijacking. mine is about not wanting to masturbate. though, you'll be happy to know that last night at the bar, i came home and whacked it like it was my job. too much stimulus.

joe, i wish i could point the finger somewhere. maybe i'm just no longer attracted to myself. maybe i should try some sexier clothes.

Scooter said...

A response is on my blog.

Stickler said...

I'm so glad scooter was commenting from another blog because I was suddennly confused that I have been whacking it incorrectly all these years!

Drunken Chud said...

scooter, good, i will go see it there.

stickler, that may still be a possibility. you should check your wrist angle on the upswing. could correct you down from 3 minutes to 2. heh.

zen wizard said...

It is rather curious why that guy did not change his name.

If not for yourself, for your kids--little kids are cruel as hell, and will pick up on anything.

It's not like that name is some prestigious dynasty or something.

How much is it to change your name? Unless you hired an attorney to do it, I would think you could do it for $200.

I mean, if he just changed his name to something like "Robert Nash" it would avoid whole lifetimes of bad jokes. If I was friends with this guy I would offer to pay for the name change as an Xmas present or something.

Drunken Chud said...

zen, your guess is as good as any on that one man. if that were my name... damn straight i'd have changed it. i'd make my middle name my last name and be the creepy guy with two first names for a name, just so i wouldn't have to walk around with THAT last name. not that there's anything wrong with that.

zen wizard said...

Yes, I would rather be, "Dick Clark, Purveyor of Mediocrity and Spawn of Satan" than "Robert Fagot."

It looks vaguely French--if you want to keep the Frog heritage, may I suggest, Robert Fajeux??