No, not really. People aren't seeds, we have agency. A seed does not. You can believe that laziness doesn't exist but that doesn't make you correct. You're just playing semantics with language. Laziness exists just as much as sadness or aggression or rage or fulfillment, these are all valid abstract nouns and concepts that we've ascribed meaning as part of language.

I don't understand how you can compare people to something as simple as a seed yet still have a whole conversation about interests. Do you not see how these aren't compatible ideas? Do we have free will or not?

You kept using the words "personal interests" though. When you extend those interests to broader society, that's no longer personal by definition. You're just describing voting for what you believe will create the society you want to live in, but you framed it in a misleading way as if personal greed will get us there.

On a philosophical level, you've separated these qualities from their application. Can we agree that when a situation calls for empathy but someone employs violence, that this is bad?

I understand sociapathy. What I don't understand is why you or anyone else sympathizes with it. Your own handle has "socialist" in it yet you're swooning over some libertarian drivel from a person that doesn't think laziness even exists. Spoiler - it does.

All I know is the "average" person has slightly less than one testicle.

What sort of Gordon Gecko / Kissinger, sociopathic nonsense is this? The problem is not enough empathy, not too much. People should prioritize what's good for society because what's good for society is also good for the individual. Things like universal healthcare, environmental protections, collective bargaining. I'm a straight white healthy dude, I guess I should just ignore LGBT, women, minorities, sick people, disabled people, education (I already am learned so fuck them kids) maybe a little genocide as long as it's not against me personally. Might as well pull the ladder up because I don't need it anymore, it's in me personal interest!

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.

You should get some more diverse opinions then. Read it again through the lens of a confederate trying to preserve slavery. Or a straight person that doesn't understand LGBT issues. Or someone that's fortunate enough to not need healthcare (right now). Or someone that doesn't see the effects of climate change on their doorstep. Or someone that hasn't lost a family member to gun or vehicle violence. This isn't wisdom, it's sociopathy.

Not sure why you jump to "blame". It's about awareness of reality. You're more than welcome to raise awareness about the damage of corporate overlords, which is what's needed to do something about it politically. We alll need to talk about things to change things.

Wattage is power, not energy. But I still generally prefer carbon as a metric because that's the climate issue, so by focusing on it directly we can make more informed decisions. It also incorporates time of day/seasonal (peak) impacts implicitly, which also have profound effects on the grid, more than total energy used. The essence of our comments is the same though.

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.

You're still making the mistake of treating dems like some single monolith. It's a coalition of just about everything that isn't MAGA at this point, covering all sorts of ideals, yours being just one small part. The answer is still "get a majority of reps that aren't asswipes" and then we'll get legislation we want.

As to DC statehood, it would have gone through if not for Manchin because the Senate "majority" at the time hinged on his support. We need to win these seats with bigger majorities, period, and then they'll pass better bills. The overwhelming majorty of Dems support DC statehood, saying "they won't do it" is not a great take when they literally didn't have the votes.

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.

Sure, assuming you don't think the American rescue plan, bipartisan infrastructure act, CHIPS, IRA, and the first massive tranche of funding for Ukraine are useful. I don't think you realize how short 2 years is for the legislature and how narrow the dem margin was. They achieved significantly more useful legislation than I thought possible. Unfortunately they didn't codify Roe, overhaul SCOTUS, or harden our institutions against fascism, so maybe you're right. Who knows what they could do with a larger majority and control of the House/Senate for 2 more years though - it would be fun to find out, if we could avoid getting all worked up blaming different people we mostly agree with and vote big against fascism.

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.