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.

“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.

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.

I’ve noticed minor changes around the edges, but no transformative change. A few anecdotes - there’s a “zero waste” grocer in my town with a glass jar exchange thing, but they still get product in bulk plastic and then repackage it so consumers get to ignore the upstream supply chain plastic use. Probably better than a regular grocer, but probably not better than just buying bulk at costco or co-ops. Costco had a recent article about their new rotisserie chicken bags and it was staggering how much plastic that move will save, but that’s just efficiency and not actually solving the problem. So it’s a step, but small and theres a limit. We also have shrinkflation that makes the problem worse. So in my observation, some stuff is happening but usually to save packaging cost while simultaneously selling it as progress, despite it being not transformative enough to actually solve anything. But I guess 10lbs of waste is better than 12lbs of waste. We need regulations.

You seem to supporting the concept though. More people didn’t keep voting left, they voted center/left which sounds like has been moving right, so things stayed the same/went right. Who you vote for matters too - we have multiple opportunities to vote between “dems”. To me OPs comment is a simple truism - we can’t move left by not electing leftist individuals (and parties by extension). Any other strategy is some pie in the sky game theory.

Yes. NYT has been feeding me propane ads and BP ads. I already bitched at them last week and I’ll do it again. I think it was Pennsylvania years ago where I saw a billboard that literally said “you need fossil fuels to survive”.

Why not? We’re working on things like iron air batteries that only need basic material inputs. We have all kinds of demand response potential that isn’t realized. And we can do more transmission so a local event can be covered by capacity in other regions. Besides, any issues we have with the last 5% of generation are meaningless for the next 50%.

If Republicans want to elect Republicans that force them to pay extra for their preferred (marginal) carbon free power source, fine I guess? The rate increases aren’t great for the other 48% of the state though.

CDC says they reduce injury crashes.

https://www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/calculator/red-light.html

Cheap gas is half the reason we’re in this mess.

Maybe the garbage brands. Milwaukee, DeWalt, Makita, etc are very well made, and significantly more powerful than they were 5-10 years ago.