It’s really not - we built a rather large solar plant for one of our facilities offsetting like at most like 15% of demand, but because we were paying high utility rates it was a low double digit ROI project just on the spread between us it commercial rates and our cost of production (even higher when you added in the tax incentives) if you can build solar at utility scale costs and defray commercial or retail rates it’s a pretty good deal the problem is getting those utility scale cost structures when the projects are small…
At least in the us - the only way a utility can really make more money is by spending more money (as they get a return from the utility commission on a vested capital - massive oversimplification) but it means utilities are not incentivized to spend less rather than more…
Same in Australia, after they were corporatised (turned into companies run for profit rather than run as a service by some level of government) it was recognised that as natural monopolies there would need to be some sort of regulation on how much money they could recover, it was decided a method based on their costs was best, so they spent bad money agter good im expanding the network hugely (based on crazy projections of growth in demand to nowhere) rather than building resilience into the network and lowering their costs.
And that’s not even the cost of marketisation, that’s just the regulated network costs.
The government employees who approve or deny the utility’s priced have an incentive to not approve higher prices. Their bosses are usually elected, and higher utility prices are very unpopular.
I was told by a former southern company exec that the McKinsey did a study for them and their largest competitive advantage was regulatory capture in the states in which they operate - unfortunately I think the politicians are more beholden to the utilities than their constituents..
the thing that doesn't compute for me is that the definition of upper middle class here is 5-15x the federal poverty line, ok, but in 1970 the federal poverty line was like ~$3k (and ~$22k today) 10x in 1970 (~33k/year) in nyc you could buy a 2,000 sqft apt for like 2.75x your salary [1] today, that same apartment is like >10x - so while perhaps more people are earning "upper middle class" incomes, what that gets you has declined significantly.
The poverty line, as established in the 60s, is simply 3x the minimum food budget. Food as a percentage of spending has decreased, while housing and other expenses have dramatically increased.
If the poverty line were to be adjusted to reflect the share that food takes up of income today, from ~30% in 1963 to ~6% today, the threshold for a family of four would go from ~30k a year to ~150k.
It's true that lower income families spend a higher proportion of money on food [0], but that was equally true in 1963. It's a static fact about income brackets at any time, and doesn't explain the change in average share.
Food share dropped from ~30% to ~6% because real incomes have risen and food has become cheaper relative to housing, healthcare, education, and so on. That shift affects all income levels, including the poor. Your point doesn't contradict the article's, that the poverty line, based on 1960s food budgets, no longer reflect current costs of living.
Could you send the article where the author revises their claim?
In the 1950's poor people in America may have had housing, but there's a good chance that housing didn't have plumbing. Poor people in the 50's spent roughly 0% of their income on childcare. Much of the article is complaining about the cost of child care.
You may think that poor people should be able to afford child care. That's a valid thought. But then you can't compare that to a 1950's definition of poverty where child care is definitely not affordable by the poor.
In the 60s (and 50s, though not sure why we're moving backwards) most households were single income; childcare costs were virtually nonexistent because mothers typically stayed at home to raise children, and a family would get by on the father's income alone.
That actually illustrates the point nicely: typical economic and living situations from when the metric was created were very different from today in a variety of ways, and once again, the reason the 3x food costs number was chosen -- that roughly 1/3 of income of low-income households was spent on food -- is simply no longer true.
Now, what the poverty line should be is a whole 'nother topic -- for the record the ~150k number is more as an demonstration of how broken the metric is than an actual suggestion, at least as I see it. This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere though so I'm tapping out, but I would still appreciate it if you would link to the article you mentioned.
That sounds specifically like the housing shortage that is afflicting some of the most dynamic, productive parts of the country, like NYC and the California Bay Area.
Driven by NIMBYism and some other things, those areas stopped building anything like enough housing, with the obvious result that demand outstripped supply and prices rose, putting them out of reach of many.
That's kind of the origin story of the YIMBY movement, which started forming to fight that trend.
I don't disagree but i also think in terms of actual numbers, the majority of the people that earn these upper middle income salaries are living in more expensive urban areas (at least before work from home)
Comparing NYC in the 1970s to today isn't a "big apple to big apple" comparison.
NYC in 1970s was on the verge of bankruptcy [0] and federal receivership, saw 1,000 industrial firms leave annually leading to 500K jobs lost from 1969-76 [1], and saw around 880K residents [2] leave for suburbs or other states. NYC didn't recover until the 2000s [3].
For your discussion, a better comparison should be cities+towns that were rich in the 1970s that remained rich in the 2020s, and cities+towns that were poor in the 1970s and remained poor in the 2020s. Similarly, a better contemporary comparison for NYC in the 1970s would be Detroit or potentially even Los Angeles.
yeah that was a pretty cheap time to buy in nyc for sure - but i don't think that anyone would argue that the the ratio of home price/income has stayed flat/decreased over the past five decades
Few people had air conditioning. Cars might last 100,000 miles, if you got a good one. They performed poorly, got awful mileage, and crushed the passenger compartment if you got into an accident.
Many people smoked, and people died younger. Medicine wasn’t as good.
Rich kids might have a giant set of books called an ‘encyclopedia’. It was about the only way to learn things that were outside your circle, there was no internet.
TV came in 3 channels, and you had to be sitting in front of it when your show came on. There was no way to record a show for later viewing.
Of course race relations were much worse then. So were things for women and others. Job advancement wasn’t the same as it is today.
I wouldn’t go back for anything. The poorest people today ( even the homeless, who seem to often have really nice tents and weather gear, relatively ) have it better than in 1970.
I don’t care what things cost. Practically everybody is richer today.
The 1970s energy crisis as a result of issues in Israel and Iran did indeed help improve cars.
We had this thing called a 'library', with 'books', which helped me learn things outside my circle. Our schools even had a full-time librarian to help us with the technology. Even our church had a library, with a bunch of Tom Swift books.
We didn't live in the boonies like you did. On VHF we had 3 commercial network TV stations, an independent station, and PBS. On UHF there were more, including another PBS station, another independent station, and a commercial station in the Spanish International Network (SIN).
My parents could afford to buy a home and raise a family on a single income from my high school educated father. He died 10 years ago. My mother still gets benefits from his pension plan.
It's also true that cheap ass nylon tents are better than the canvas tents we used to camp in. While we metaphorically drown in plastic as the anthropogenic global warming predicted by the 1970s tightens its grip ever more.
Am I misunderstanding something or is your point - Poor people have air conditioning and better (but certainly not cheaper) medical outcomes, and netflix today, therefore they have a better quality of life than 1970? And people without homes have better tents and jackets, today?
At least in my mind - if we were talking about statistical segmentation of income I think that’s right - but “middle class” and “upper middle class” denote a level of economic security, social status, lifestyle, disposable income whatever that I do think correlates with cost of living.
I’m not against offshore drilling - but I don’t think the stakes are high enough - deep water horizon should have put BP out of business (yes they paid a ton of money - but probably not enough) and people probably should have gone to jail - until that changes it’s going to be bad
Just my 2c but I think the biggest thing we could do is to reduce the regulatory burden, cost, and complexity associated with installing roof mounted solar. This should be something that can be approved and installed in a week, and should be a half the price (put another it should have a double digit roi) . Right now all of the economics of home solar are consumed by regulation/complexity and the contractors / solar installation companies.
At the consumer scale the biggest thing we could do is follow the german model of panels that can be plugged into an outlet and installed in an hour by any homeowner (with the same capacity limits and requirements on the panels electronics to protect the grid/line workers during power outages).
That said I'm pretty sure that grid-scale solar is the future of most solar energy, not home solar. It's just cheaper to do things in bigger batches.
This statement is 100% correct, but I think is wrong - utility scale solar is 100% more efficient and cheaper to build at scale, the problem is finding large parcels of land to put it on that are close to where the power consumption is, as well as the complexity and cost associated with grid interconnection (and transition if it not close to demand)
Edit: though if we ever get to self driving cars there should be a whole lot of parking lots in metro areas that aren’t needed.
There's been a wave of legislation[1] introduced in the US to legalize so-called "balcony solar," small grid-tied solar systems that plug into a regular household outlet with zero permitting or interconnect requirements. This is already common in Europe, it's mildly complicated by our split-phase system but not much.
The reason for the high burden today is people have developed an inflated sense of how much the kWh they generate is worth. They install massive systems on their roofs to try to "cancel out" their power bill by exporting their entire daily power consumption over the course of a few sunny hours, which (when all their neighbors do the same) ends up being a costly burden for grid operators who then pass the costs on to users without panels. Smaller systems focused on immediate, local consumption rather than export are much better for the grid which is why they have support.
"Costly burden" is an incredible statement. The utilities get what is effectively free electricity generation. Remember every solar customer still pays the grid connection fee, which goes to maintain the grid.
They love to market a "green energy" plan where they pay you 3c for your exported power and charge somebody miles away 25c for it!
It's a true statement and a real problem. These wildcat megawatt-scale generation facilities built on top of suburban neighborhoods produce an un-curtail-able midday oversupply of electricity driving energy prices into the negative.
The power has to go somewhere, SoCal grid operators have to pay real money to neighboring grids to accept the energy being generated while also paying the homeowner who generated it. No grid connection fee comes close to covering this, it's paid for by increasing rates for everyone else. Net metering was a stupid deal cooked up by politicians who are incapable of systems thinking, or simply decided appealing to suburban voters was more important than grid stability.
It's getting better[1] but still a problem, and the solutions being pursued are: discourage export in favor of onsite storage (done by NEM 3.0) and encourage smaller solar installs (balcony solar).
100% this. If it was DIYable, its an order of magnitude cheaper.
I have leftover panels from an off grid install, and its extremely hard to get an approved permit for a small roof solar array + off the shelf AIO (Ecoflow/Anker)
The consumer rooftop solar cost is usually one of the most expensive ways you can generate electricity - often several times the cost of utility solar installations. The high rooftop solar price is usually hidden (at least in the USA) because no power source has been as subsidized as rooftop solar. Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid. This causes higher electricity bills for those in apartments and those who can't afford to put panels on their roof. Also, in almost all cases, the home installation doesn’t have enough battery power to actually last through inclement weather and so is free riding on the reliability provided by the grid, putting more costs on the less well off. The whole thing is sort of a reverse Robin Hood scheme.
Rooftop solar is good but it shouldn't be a gift to the wealthier residents paid for by those less wealthy. Any subsidies for solar power should go to utility grade solar. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further than a dollar spent subsidizing wealthy homeowners who install panels on their roof.
> The high rooftop solar price is usually hidden (at least in the USA)
My understanding is that the (unsubsidised) price of rooftop solar is only high in the USA. Because the cost is almost entirely labor (high in the US) and issues around permitting (more restrictive in the US). Pretty much everywhere else in the world you'll now save money with rooftop solar + batteries even if you can't sell back to the grid at all. Even places that aren't that sunny like the UK where I live.
It is still more expensive than "grid scale" deployments. But there are positive externalities that make up for that: uses otherwise unused space, less grid capacity needed, adds resiliency to the grid (if implemented well with storage).
I recently specced a 500kW project. Quote was $CA1.67/Watt. But I'm pretty sure they would have bumped that up a lot higher later in the process if we hadn't stopped due to permitting hurdles.
> Besides direct subsidies, wealthier home owners have often been paid the retail rate for the electricity they sell to the grid. This causes higher electricity bills for those in apartments and those who can't afford to put panels on their roof
I don't think you thought this up yourself, so I won't blame you for it, as this exact, word for word swill is mindlessly repeated by a lot of people, so thats ample evidence of brainwashing going on.
The subsidies and retail rate (both of which have been murdered by now thanks to swill like this) incentives were not a sneaky reverse welfare program snuck in by the wealthy.
They were infrastructure incentives for people who could afford to make those infrastructure investments.
Investments have always required incentives and a positive ROI. You don't put money into your 401k, Roth or HSA because you expect to lose money in 20 years.
The goal of solar subsidies was never some sneaky wealth redistribution with unforseen sideeffects but rather to rally support from the private industry and wealthy homes to spearhead rapid decarbonization, energy independence, and grid decentralization.
A single mother treading water, barely being able to afford groceries isn't your persona for actually making rapid decarbonization, energy independence, and grid decentralization happen - however, the wealthy that you so despise of, certainly put a 10kWh (sometimes more) PV array on their 3000 sqft rooftop and actually feed power to the grid that was reeling under tremendous growing strain.
People hanging portable solar panels from the balconies of their apartments barely make power to run their kitchen fridge so that's out as well.
Mom and pop landlords and corporate run apartments aren't going to put solar for their tenants because they are not legally allowed to sell power above utility rates while they don't enjoy the 10% guaranteed ROI that utilities get (which is where utilities actually make their money), so that's out too.
This makes me sad - We could have had a future where the grid was fully decentralized, where our single mother neighbor would never had to worry about the lights getting turned off even when there was a downed power line or wildfire or a snowstorm turning down power lines half a mile away, where she could plug in her EV into my shed instead of having to drive miles away to a crowded charging station.
We are numbers people here - so here's a numbers perspective:
If I had taken the same money I had to spend on a "grid compliant" installation (so I could connect all of this to the grid) and put it into the SNP500 instead, I would never have had to worry just about a power bill (as bad it is - $0.60/kWh) but also my inflation adjusted grocery bills for the rest of my life.
You won't convince many people if you think ad hominem attacks and insults are acceptable. Yes, subsidies are done to help drive adoption. The key is that the subsidies should go where they can do the most good. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar.
My response is the opposite of ad hominem. It's me noticing and acknowledging that a large group of people comment on energy policy who understand neither energy nor policy but feel confident to both vote and comment on energy policy because they have been brainwashed.
> a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar
That's completely, trivially provably wrong.
For one, rooftop residential allows decentralization and redundancy. Customers can have their house continue to run while the grid as a whole is down.
Utility solar absolutely does not - solar here is just another source of energy into the centralized grid. From a physics and math perspective, that source of energy could very well have been a coal plant. It doesn't have the same decentralized and redundancy benefit as a 10kWh PV array and a 30kWh battery on a home where the home no longer even needs the grid anymore.
Any rational consumer would appreciate having power than not - We cannot argue physics and math or consumer demands - that's just insanity.
A person who repeatedly argues against this basic math doesn't have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Further, when there's a group of people who repeatedly argues the same illogical swill using the same phrasing as the others, it's a cult.
I could go on and on but I have learned that arguing with brainwashed people takes a lot of time and effort and most of the time, in the end, it ends in a stalemate. Most of the time, it reenforces them they are right and the other side is ignorant and "doesnt get it". No thank you.
On this very thread a person who actually designs and implements grid projects agreed that the only objective utility solar serves are those of the utilities themselves.
The reason why this person is provably correct is because you could come to the same conclusion from first principles as well. To most people, the above statement is a "duh!" moment.
They gave solid, clear, objective examples of how utilities have other much higher priorities than ensuring consumers have access to the most affordable, reliable, resilient power.
They further gave evidence and insight into how the way utilities fund their infrastructure projects actively make them opposed to what's good for the consumer, because decentralization and redundancy would collapse the value of existing collateral.
Now that's a high quality, high value, high merit discussion.
When someone comes and lectures me about how my dollars should go towards initiatives that absolutely do not help me, rather makes me even more dependent on a 3rd party that doesn't have me as their first priority, I dont care about what they have to say especially when I have options available where my dollars directly go towards initiatives that absolutely do help me.
The most generous interpretation I have of their motives is that they are brainwashed.
I would encourage beginning from first principles, gaining clarity into what the final objective is - to provide affordable, redundant, reliable, resilient power to the consumer or to ensure the utility has smoother operations and a tighter grip over the consumer and ensure the consumer is completely dependent on the utility?
If the brainwashing isn't complete and there's a tiny chance of a breakthrough, maybe changing domains would help?
What's better for a local economy that has willing, capable backyard farmers:
- allow them to sell their product that meets all regulatory requirements, to other willing consumers at the same market clearing price or
- destroy them completely and remove any incentives for them to grow, in favor of having a massive, centralized farm?
I have some experience with distributed energy generation and have met with senior utility executives many times while trying to implement some grant supported projects through my work.
It turns out that a big problem is that whenever we install local generation it costs utilities a ton of money. They bundle the cost of grid maintenance into their per kWh charges. These costs, which include debt service, maintenance, upgrades etc amount to 5-7 cents/kWh. Whenever you generate your own energy you cost the utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of your usage.
This business model, which has bundled grid maintenance into usage costs means that utilities put up huge roadblocks for distributed generation. They say they love it, but they actually hate it. Utility executives have looked me in the eye and said as much.
It gets worse though, because energy infrastructure is backed by trillions in utility bonds. These "low risk" debt instruments are owned by national and private pension funds of mind boggling size. In order to bring about a distributed energy future the grid (and low pressure nat gas infrastructure) must be reorganized in a manner that is likely to make those bonds worthless. These background factors are definitely in play when you see these bait and switch enthusiastic green energy programs that turn out to be a regulatory quagmire when you dig into them. Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy, they are a major factor in west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China.
> It turns out that a big problem is that whenever we install local generation it costs utilities a ton of money
So a question:
- Lets hypothesize that distributed, decentralized systems cost way more than centralized systems
- If you agree with that hypothesis, can we next hypothesize that building a distributed, decentralized system that can support power on one block and can allow it to continue to stay on while the "central feeder line" (please tell me the proper word for this made up word is) to all the blocks is down, because that one block has a local distributed, decentralized power source, is of value to the community?
In the past, commercial factories were the only places that could afford this kind of redundancy but it feels to me, thanks to crashing prices of solar and batteries (I could never have imagined 12kWh brand new LFP could be purchased for $2k), this level of redundancy is now very much realistic at the consumer, residential level. It just doesn't work locally today because the utility poles lack the smarts to do the isolated switching and safe islanding. For example: one unsettled question today is if a lot of customers on one such island are on solar and the grid is down, how do we safely supply power within nominal specs to the whole of the island - but this isn't a physical unknown, we know how to solve it. It just is lacking implementation.
> These costs, which include debt service, maintenance, upgrades etc amount to 5-7 cents/kWh. Whenever you generate your own energy you cost the utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of your usage
Capitalism has repeatedly proven its ability to cut costs down while improving QoS. I realize you really believe in the numbers you have been provided - that it costs a utility 5-7cents/kWh that they have to pay regardless of my usage, but before SpaceX, it used to cost multiple millions of dollars and years of planning and design to launch one rocket.
In this case the utility executives work for public utilities. So capitalism isn't to blame. It's about the incentives of the incumbent energy providers.
It is already cheaper to build the distributed energy solution you describe but making that change would require a massive restructuring of electricity and natural gas utilities. Such a restructuring would revalue the debt that backs the existing infrastructure. This would be a great thing for the average person but not for the people currently in charge of regulating what types of systems are allowed.
Costs of distributed energy may drop so low in the next 5-10 years that it will no longer be possible to keep things from moving to a micro grid network.
> but making that change would require a massive restructuring of electricity and natural gas utilities. Such a restructuring would revalue the debt that backs the existing infrastructure. This would be a great thing for the average person but not for the people currently in charge of regulating what types of systems are allowed
fair. I appreciated the insight in your original message - datapoints from industry insiders like yourself do help people like I gain some understanding of why we have to go in alone on this and not wait
> Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy, they are a major factor in west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China
No this statement is absolutely wrong. Here's why:
> west's pathetic performance when it comes to solar adoption vs China
China is dominating energy because the CCP doesn't care what their citizens think. They need energy and they are doing everything they can do to get it. They will put you behind bars at best or kill your family and demolish your house if it gets in the middle of a power line trench. For China, energy isn't a "nice to have" - they realize it's essential and they won't stop until they get there.
China is the person out in the mountains being chased by a hungry bear while we in the west is the person sitting in their air conditioned room debating whether to drive or take an Uber to have a drink with buddies.
News came out last week that you can buy a Chinese hypersonic missle for $100k - you can't even build a little two car garage where I am for double that price.
> Public utilities and pension funds hate green energy
Pension funds don't care whether energy is green or orange. What they hate are the horrible returns affected by all the stealing and grifting that happens in the name of "green energy".
Public utilities (atleast in the jurisdictions that I am aware of) love any infrastructure work - they are guaranteed a 10% ROI by the government on any approved infrastructure work they do. If you could work with them to build infrastructure to cremate just newborn kids and get it approved by the CPUC, they will happily start work on it tomorrow. The reason why they hate green energy is because after they've made their 10% ROI, they are now stuck with a power source that costs them more than their non-green sources and that hurts their razor thin margins.
However, as the customer - I don't care either about what public utilities and pension funds hate or don't.
What I do care about is having affordable and reliable power and I absolutely can get that with my own solar panels and batteries. The fact that it's green is a happy sideffect for most.
The reason why every home in the U.S. isn't overflowing with solar panels and batteries is because of regulation and government shenanigans making retail costs really high. Average people in Pakistan, South Africa and Lebanon certainly power their whole homes with solar panels and batteries but their governments don't have nonsense taffifs and fees on Chinese solar equipment.
Totally agree that regulations and government interference are the reasons we don't have cheap solar panels.
Those regulations and that interference result from the fact that in a distributed world the current utility bond value drops to zero. Utilities will not build infrastructure that makes their existing infrastructure lose value.
I recently negotiated with a government owned utility on a large solar project. They were 100% against it until I demonstrated that the project would never feed back to the grid and wouldn't reduce the amount of power we currently buy from them. Zero interest in distributed solutions on their side. They are focused on giant transmission line projects and hydro.
> They are focused on giant transmission line projects and hydro
Is that because of the scale they need to achieve to support the investment?
> until I demonstrated that the project would never feed back to the grid
Financial greed aside, and I mentioned this previously, feedback at a large scale isn't free especially if the impedance of the grid cannot be predicted - the frequency or voltage or both would spike. Monitoring for these conditions are expensive and addressing them is even more expensive - the cheapest solution is you do a shutdown until things stabilize but this is kinda catch-22 because that itself might have its own cascading effects.
Let me ask you this - if you were to update a local neighborhood (like a block or two of 1000 homes) distribution station, that all have their own solar and battery, where the homes could independently power themselves for a day - what changes or upgrades would you make to ensure they can share load for that one day when the larger grid is suffering an outage?
Now would that cost and complexity be lower or higher if instead, nothing was changed at grid scale at all but each of the individual 1000 homes doubled their own capacity (let's say 30kWh a day if you're OK with that)?
That land is producing food for cars. If we covered half in solar panels we’d have almost enough energy to power the country. Turn the other half over to food production and you’d come out ahead on both energy and food.
It's a common mistake to believe there isn't enough land to grow food, and that is simply false. We throw tons and tons of food away every year due to spoilage and other factors. Even in many parts of Africa scarcity of food is caused by waste and distribution problem than simply lack of arable land.
And when you think about the millions of lands used to grow bioethanol I think we can safely convert that for solar installation without worries.Agrovoltaic is also a practical approach for a lot of crops and farmers so that we can grow and produce electricity side by side.
Why do you assume that solar and production of food is mutually exclusive on that land? Agrovoltaics is a thing and can often have benefits to the growing of crops.
A roof is quite literally the worst place to put solar panels. Its a load most roofs are not designed for, and the whole point of a roof is to keep water out, which is compromised by attaching stuff to it.
The most efficient way to do large scale solar is with semi-local utility scale arrays with ultra efficient inverters and enormous chemical or hydro storage. We have a lot of unused land, that's not a problem
I do my own writing, but i can go so much faster really just writing all of my thoughts down and organizing them a bit and using llms to really just clean up and better organize my thinking.
A while ago we were looking at migrating ERP - netsuite was a not a good price proposition and candidly feels a bit dated - but when you mapped features it was pretty impressive and for a lot of business that have some complexity (multi-entity, multi-currency, multi site mfg or inventory), there is not a whole lot of good alternatives because you can't use quicken but you definitely don't want SAP
The irony is that the ERP space is ripe for innovation and disruption, but nobody wants to get into ERP because it's a goddamn nightmare.
Every business runs slightly differently than everyone else, and ERP tries to be this all-encompassing monolith. I wonder if the solution to ERP isn't just targeted microservices exposing data via APIs...
yeah but i think that is the problem - everyone wants to customize / thinks their business is super unique, but honestly the customization is what makes ERP so painful. industry customization is important (motels are different than a small manufacturer) but for SMEs a standard solution that fits their industry is the can be implemented in a manner that's not akin to open heart surgery would be far more valuable to these firms.
on this point the netsuite ecosystem is huge and there are not that many options for SME's that are too big/complex for inacct or quicken (even campfire/rillet etc) but don't want to get anywhere near SAP, Infor, IFS, oracle (not netsuite).
reply