Shit… sounds about right.

Although the /water is hot enough/ scenario could be addressed mechanically: bigger water tank, lower heating element raised and the heat pump heating the bottom exclusively where it could /always/ add heat because it would never be hot enough at the bottom.

(edit) after some thought, it would superficially make sense to get a factory water heater (tank) and not tamper with it at all. Just have a PV-powered HP heat water before it enters the stock water heater (in a tank or coil). Thus there could be 2 heat pumps (but for economy the stock tank would just be a simple non-heat pump type thus 1 HP). I guess this is still a dead idea anyway if it’s true that a PV cannot simply directly connect to a compressor.

Would the materials have much more of a footprint than geothermal installations? Because that slight 7° difference between below ground temp and above ground temps apparently justifies the labor, materials, and power to the circulators for harvesting geothermal energy. So this seems to be the same but adding a cherry on top – incorporating a heat pump to add to the energy of a geothermal system.

Because of Google’s DoS attack, those of us in the open free world cannot reach Youtube. So would someone please explain the concept in text?

Is this it? → https://utahforge.com/2022/12/30/did-you-know-that-scottish-clubbers-use-dance-beat-to-generate-heat/

Seems like a great idea. Like using the body heat to boost geothermals.

Someone plz tell Massive Attack about this. Massive Attack has gone gung-ho on eco-friendly festivals (in places inaccessible by car). They might want to throw some indoor events with this tech.

(edit) from the article:

“An experienced DJ could get up to 600 watts with the right song at the right time.”

So IIUC that’s like ~1½ solar panels getting a full dose of UV, correct? I guess that’s not much. But nonetheless not something to throw away either. So during the day solar panels on the roof could heat the ground pipes and during the night the clubbers keep the system powered.

Would be fun for that power output to be measured, and then that power measurement could be a performance index on each DJ. You pay the DJ according to the power output they can produce. Though I guess that would screw over the ambiant / trip-hop DJs.

Have they thought this through? To install batteries that are much heavier than what the bus trip requires makes the bus less efficient. Research in the UK found that a bus carrying 5 people is about as efficient as 5 cars each carrying 1 person. That’s because of the weight of the bus. So the goal should be to fill the bus with people, not excessive batteries and overhead that need not move back and forth from A to B which then requires more riders to maintain the same efficiency.

Sure they need to store energy for to smooth out peak grid consumption but probably smarter to do that with stationary batteries – if they must use batteries. Another way to store energy: pump water to the top of a mountain and open a dam that turns a hydro turbine when they need the energy back.

from the article:

Pollution from buses and other vehicles contributes to chronic asthma among students, which leads to chronic absenteeism.

Seems like a stretch. Even if they can attribute chronic absenteeism to air pollution and keep a straight face, moving the pollution of a fleet of buses that makes 2 trips/day from the street to the power plant isn’t going to change the absenteeism by reducing asthma. This claim only signals a bit of desperation to get support.

Well that depends on how equipped you are. One cool thing about compressors is you can straight up connect a PV directly to a compressor with no voltage regulators or anything. So if you have a simple setup like that, I can see up front cost effectiveness in storing ice. But if you already have batteries, and thus voltage regulators and all the costly intermediate components to make that possible, then I would agree… I might rather store it in lead acid batteries as that would be more versatile.

Sounds like they would do well in Arizona, where the air is dry. IIUC swamp coolers were very popular in Arizona until ~20 years ago when temps increased so much that swamp coolers could not make enough difference (this is largely because more and more land became concrete, which reduced the effect of evaporative cooling the land mass). So a/c became more popular in AZ IIUC. But the dry air would still be dry.

Great basic concept but I think I would benefit more for the stored cooling going toward ice cubes for mojitos.

I don’t imagine that a single family dwelling would benefit from the extra complexity of adding cold water pipes in all the floors of the house. Probably makes more sense for apartment buildings (or perhaps homes that already have hydrothermal floors for heating).

Consider this excerpt:

When the grid is extremely stressed, utility companies are sometimes forced to shut off electricity supply to some areas, leaving people there without power when they need it most. Technologies that can adjust to meet the grid’s needs could help reduce reliance on these rolling blackouts.

So grid-powered a/c can give the grid relief at peak times with this tech.

But indeed this tech on a PV-powered compressor seems sketchy. There are probably moments when the sun is hitting hard but the temp has not climbed up yet (sunrise) in which case it would be useful to store the energy. But I’m struggling to understand how the complexity of the system would be justified considering the overall efficiency is reduced as well. I wonder what proportion of time this system would be working in storage mode. If sunrise is 9am and peak heat is 2pm, maybe there’s ~2—4 hours of storage time potential.

OTOH, consider someone with a slightly underpowered PV. Maybe the energy storage can compensate for peak heat times when the PV output may be insufficient. Perhaps it would enable homeowners to spend less on PV panels.

fwiw, here is an emacs version:

https://codeberg.org/martianh/lem.el#headline-11

I think what would be most useful would be a usenet→lemmy gateway, so that rich catalog of usenet clients can be leveraged on Lemmy.

I recently read a complaint about the opposite. Someone deleted their Proton account and their handle was made available 1 year later. They were rightfully angry because the next user would potentially start receiving mail from things like the original user’s bank. The new user could perform password resets on accounts where the original user had not yet changed the email address on file.

And don’t neglect the disease factor. Recent research shows that stressed animals (both human and non-human) have weakened immune systems. And as you might expect farmed animals are stressed in high numbers. This has been linked to diseases. Diseases in non-human animals sometimes jumps to humans. There would be substantial overlap between climate activists and those valuing safety from pandemics. And indeed, that same political party in the US who fought masks and vaccines happens to be the same group of people who deny climate change.

Why not? If the right eco answer is to eat more of a certain kind of meat instead of quitting meat,

First of all that’s not likely correct info. I can’t see the uncited chart you posted but it certainly sounds untrustworthy. I’ve seen several charts in documentaries and research papers and they generally show roughly the same pattern, comparable to this chart.

But let’s say someone managed to convincingly cherry-pick some corner-case legumes that are bizarre outliers to the overall pattern. Maybe there are some rare fruits that get shipped all over the world. It certainly does not make sense to divide, disempower, and diffuse the vegan movement in order to make exotic fruit/veg X the enemy of climate action in favor of preserving chicken factory-farming. Not a fan of Ronald Regan but there is a useful quote by him:

“if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”

IOW, you’ve added counter-productive complexity to the equation at the cost of neutering an otherwise strong movement – or in the very least failed to exploit an important asset we need for climate action. This is not an environmental activist move. It’s the move of a falsely positioned meat-eating climate denier strategically posturing.

The wise move is to consider action timing more tactfully. That is, push the simple vegan narrative for all it’s worth to shrink the whole livestock industry (extra emphasis on beef is fine but beyond that complexity works against you). No meat would be entirely eliminated of course (extinction mitigation is part of the cause anyway), but when a certain amount of progress is made only then does it make sense to go on the attack on whatever veg can really be justified as a worthy new top offender. The optimum tactful sequence of attack is not the order that appears on whatever chart you found.

The somewhat simplified take is: “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em, then beat ’em”. Vegans are united and it’s foolish to disrupt that at this stage.

Note as well that if the chocolate comes from:

• #Nestlé
• #HaagenDazs or
• #Hershey’s

then the supply chain has child slaves as well.

You can’t even get people to oppose livestock subsidies, and you’re talking about proactive blocks? The action you propose has the least chance of success. Individuals with self-control is the only certain action you can count on.

It would be a lot more environmentally effective to convince people to reduce beef consumption and replace it with chicken/pork instead,

Let’s not drive a wedge between the eco-vegans and the animal welfare vegans. Beef is the worst for climate while chickens get the least ethical treatment.

This duplicity muddies the waters and makes getting real actual change that would benefit the climate harder to achieve and less likely to happen.

Dividing an already tiny population of much needed activists is not how you get progressive change. Non-beef meats still shadow plant-based food in terms of their climate harm.

Your pic was too big for me to download but if it’s the same data I’ve seen, then beef is the worst and lamb is 2nd at about ½ the emissions of beef, and all the meats are substantially more harmful than plant based options.

The emphasis should be on “social”. There are many facets to the problem but the social problem (individuals neglecting to act as they wait on systemic action) is the problem of my focus. The hope that Trump does not get reelected in 1 year and set back global systemic action for 4 years is a bit problematic.

Yes, but insufficiently so, and as I said much more slowly. Why wait? And why needlessly emit GHG as you wait?

The amount that any person could change about their own lifestyle to impact climate change will never be enough,

Systemic change will also be insufficient and also late. You need both people acting now and the system eventually making some impact - which will be a compromise as the oil states claim they need to sell oil to afford to reach a carbon neutral infra.

In contrast, I think psilocybin reinforces the narrative that we’re individually responsible for climate change.

It’s not about blame. This is what the climate deniers try to push: “it’s not humans fault thus we are not responsible for fixing it”. A solution is what matters, not looking for who to blame.

People who are psychologically flexible are the ones who are signing up to stop contributing to the problem and who can become part of the solution faster than systemic change can be deployed.

I would like to add that refusal to “ditch their car” is ignoring a glaring problem: Many cities are not walkable, and/or people live too far away from employment to choose cleaner options.

That’s not an oversight. Choosing to live and work in places that do not require a car is part of the act of ditching the car. Indeed, ditching the car is not as simple as selling the car in many cases.

In my case ditching the car meant vacating the shitty car-clusterfucked city I was in. I switched to public transport for a few years then realized that’s just a baby step (a city bus with just 5 people is as bad as 5 cars each with 1 person). So from there I migrated to a bicycle.

It’s not guaranteed to be a positive experience or produce a “climate-friendly” change in mindset.

Indeed it’s not for everyone. And in fact it’s somewhat late. The study shows that those who take psilocybin before they reach the age 35 are for the rest of their lives more open minded. I don’t think you can easily refute that. The leap I’ve made from there by saying open-mindedness is conducive to adapting to a changing world (being flexible about changing one’s own lifestyle) is probably not far-fetched. But certainly it’s not for everyone.

Prediction: meditation will become more popular and the short-cut (psilocybin) will become a more and more liberated option in the future. It will make populations more adaptable to a changing world and future crises. At this point, I can see psilocybin helping people better adapt to a fully played out climate impact 20 years from now.