I’m only seeing a “short version” linked that has one question (and a horrible one at that, it’s a ranking of 5 things that are all about “average Americans”). Based on this question alone, I’m forced to assume the test itself was stupid yet their conclusion is likely correct.

“New generation of engineers” is a bit cringe. The old generation knew thermodynamics pretty damn well. All that’s changed is they’re using R290 refrigerants and variable speed compressors now, but those don’t change anything from a physics perspective. COP is fun but it’s not even the right metric to use from a policy perspective, just like MPG. And despite being unitless, COP suffers from the same exagerative effect as MPG numbers. What matters is the carbon associated with delivering BTUs to a home, so here you can have the ridiculous case of delivering more BTUs at a higher carbon cost achieving a higher SCOP than the same exact heat pump delivering fewer BTUs at a lower total carbon cost achieving a lower SCOP for a better insulated home, and the person with the higher SCOP bragging about it like a clown. At least when the government tests COP it’s a standardized test so you can actually compared equipment (somewhat).

Regardless, nerds gonna nerd and no harm done (and I also track real time energy use of my heat pump, so I consider myself a nerd).

Not sure where you’re located, but there are often significant incentives for heat pumps. If you’re US and low/moderate income, there are big programs ramping up via the IRA that will cover a large percentage of the costs, assuming you’re not in a total brain dead state.

Ultimately we must do the best with what’s available to us, just like you’re doing. Electrify everything, get the most efficient stuff you can, and vote and trust your regulators are decarbonizing the grid. I’m in CO and although I am on track to overproduce on an annual basis with my 8 kW system, I’m not even close to matching my usage daily and especially not seasonally (good luck in January when my heat pump is cranking and I have a foot of snow on the panels). I’m able to retire my own RECS for my production so at least Xcel doesn’t get to use my solar to meet their targets, but I’m clearly very heavily dependent on their grid.

We’re maybe a decade behind CA in solar adoption and although I’m aggressively compensated by our current rate structure, that will surely change when the duck grows a belly here and solar is worth jack shit at high noon. It’s a fascinating industry.

Incredibly detailed article, thanks for sharing. I would like to see more detail on the conversions efficiencies however. We already know the economics of green hydrogen are quite poor without free renewable energy, so adding more conversion steps, accounting for losses and warming impacts from leaks, and then finally burning such fuels, often for low value uses like process heat (steel is another story) seems just awful when we have so much lower hanging fruit to worry about.

Clearly there will be some niche uses for these types of fuels and ergo they must have a pathway to be carbon neutral, but at this stage it all feels like a massive distraction that conveniently preserves existing fossil infrastructure, which will undoubtedly result in it being used for fossil interests in the meantime.

this is a pretty tangible demonstration that renewable power really is cheaper than fossil fuels.

I’m not sure that the complex tariff web in CA allows for this conclusion. There are tons of market inequities baked into the rate structures, and the convoluted RECS schemes that allow for “100% renewable” are far from transparent at the system level. This option is just a regulatory construct, not anything that represents the broader market. As long as the IOUs are still allowed to earn the same profits courtesy of the CPUC, this just changes who’s left holding the bag, which is why equity is such a huge focus for them now. That being said, you’re still right but the TX free-for-all model illustrates this most simply.

Some of us also are against massive overuse of glyphosate.

First of all, this is an opinion piece. It tells a story about how fracking has harmed one ranch, and weaves it into a broader narrative about short term gains for a few shareholders against long term harm to the land. It doesn’t need to exhaustively cover all aspects of fracking.

Second, NM isn’t PA. The land itself has a fragility that PA simply doesn’t. The high desert is a delicate ecosystem and even stepping on cryptobiotic soils for example can cause damage that leads to erosion. The absurdity of wasting water in the desert for fracking doesn’t compare to PA, and your point about water being ifinitely reusable is odd - go tell the folks in Flint that technically water can always be returned to a pure state and see how helpful that is. Let me dump PFAS in your well and shrug, mumbling something about evaporation fixing your problems before I scamper off to poison your neighbors well.

Lastly, while you’re spot on about the deficient regulatory structure and bond system for ensuring abandoned wells are taken care of, the reality is much worse than your anecdote about perfectly plugged wells. These are sold off to shell corps and they often continue to leak for decades because it’s cheaper to do nothing than to abandon wells safely. This is a major problem, Colorado for example has implemented reforms but they are still not even close to funding proper well plugs around the state.

You also have to deal with a ton of extra plumbing and envelope penetrations, and the space the thermal solar collector takes up doesn’t fit nicely with a solar PV array either. A HPWH might use 800 kWh/year, so thats like less than two 400+ W panels to cover all your water heating. I think thermal solar is fine tech and there are certainly situations where it makes sense (perhaps yours) but overwhelmingly HPWH is more cost effective and simpler.

There are a few over 3.3 on the ESTAR product finder, and I think this is just a reflection that these products are new and there aren’t that many out there. It’s all a bit dumb since a 240V can be run in hybrid/high output/electric resistance mode and kill your efficiency, but the 120V are usually HP only and they have the exact same compressor since they only need like 800watts in HP mode, so there’s no reason for their efficiency to be lower whatsoever. Do what you need to do to get that incentive money though.

There are 120V HPWHs now too. Depending on your water use and incoming water temps, it could be an even cheaper solution since you might avoid the wiring run.

I’ve been to Maui once and it blew my mind that there isn’t at least a light rail that goes from the popular beach areas to the airport. They are like 3 main roads they could follow in a loop. Tax the shit out of the tourists and get free light rail for residents. Tourists already spend $1000/week on cars/parking at resorts that just make life miserable for locals, just take that wasted money and build rail, powered by abundant sunshine/batteries. The status quo is so absurd.

They said it was orange corn flour all along, and they have a history of not actually damaging anything but using the appearance of “damage” to make a point. Corn flour is a very simple, inert substance. You’re actually demonstrating the hypocrisy that this group is trying to highlight - more concern over something like corn flour damaging these rocks than the damage done by millions of barrels of crude oil extracted every day. Where’s your outrage over acid/micro plastic in rain that falls on these stone every week? There will be new species of moss that grow on these rocks, or pollen that blows on them from invasive species, possibly damaging them as the climate heats up - are you worried about that? Why can folks summon outrage over something inert that touched a famous rock, but not for destruction of the actual biosphere? If Stonehenge is that fragile, why are people allowed anywhere near it? You’re more than welcome to disagree with them, but if you spend more energy complaining about Just Stop Oil than you do complaining about actual oil companies, you’re actually just supporting the oil companies.

https://professortorberts.com/shop/

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know it wasn’t permanent from the get go.

That’s not the comparison at all, the comparison is what the sattelites are made of (mostly aluminum) and what the meteors are made of (mostly other stuff, like earth).

Is it actually better than coal though? It takes very little methane leakage to be as damaging as coal. Methane is shitty and we really shouldn’t celebrate any of its use.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/1187648553/natural-gas-can-rival-coals-climate-warming-potential-when-leaks-are-counted

It may be true that Starlink is a great service, but that’s entirely irrelevant to the point of the article and any ozone destruction that the satellites cause.

Are you just doing the thing where you cast doubt on journal articles because they feel wrong? You don’t think humans can affect the natural environment in such a way? This sounds oddly familiar and a bit ironic for this community…

Meteors aren’t made out of aluminum like satellites are btw. There will be more reasearch done and we will learn more. But for now, there’s a potential issue.

https://phys.org/news/2024-06-satellite-megaconstellations-jeopardize-recovery-ozone.amp

What kind of ice are you riding on? Snow, even packed snow it usually ok, but turning/braking on ice is a disaster without studded tires. Source - I’ve crashed on ice several times despite being a very competent rider in all conditions for 3 decades.

The reality is everything is at risk with a fascist anti-environmentalist leader, especially if they have a majority of Congress and the courts. I just don’t see how exercising additional restraint with respect to fuel economy standards, as if that creates opportunities for abuse down the road, helps anything here. The EPA is following the law, and should keep doing that. Your example with asbestos is just the EPA not regulating harder, so let’s applaud harder regulation.

As to the last 20 years, considering the makeup of Congress, I’d say the IRA was monumental.