So you’re saying that millions of fragile men are bullied into buying full size trucks and they have no agency whatsoever into their purchase? This is no different than exposing your kids to second hands smoke because you are afraid if you don’t smoke you won’t look cool. I seriously don’t understand why we’re making excuses and coddling these weak egos instead of actually supporting the victims of the violence these people inflict on other road users. I’m more than happy to criticize the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers for failing society as well, but that doesn’t mean the purchasers that make this all possible are innocent. It’s a rotten subculture that needs to be called out at all levels.

There’s a world of difference in pedestrian safety between a RAV4 and a Suburban or F150. Just because they call an e.g. CX30 a crossover doesn’t mean it’s as dangerous as a full size pickup truck. Your affordability argument doesn’t even make any sense - smaller vehicles are cheaper than larger vehicles. If affordability is such an issue why don’t we see more crosstreks? The mental gymnastics to avoid blaming a bunch of fragile dudes for buying ridiculously pickup trucks is absurd.

Americans don’t have the choice not to buy gigantic pickup trucks and SUVs? Gimme a break. I have never bought one, it’s not some kind of one weird trick thing, you just literally don’t fucking buy them and buy something smaller and cheaper instead.

I don’t understand the fixation on “trust” here. They set a soft target of 2030 based on their predictions at the time, now they are revising slightly but have reiterated the main points which is they are fully committed to electrification. This is a small revision, not some clear fraud like FSD. They used words like “plan”, “intend”, and “ambition”, not “promise” in their original press release. I don’t see the case that Volvo can’t be “trusted”, since they never even promised anything. Maybe I’m being pedantic, but holding Volvos feet to the fire on this doesn’t seem fair. If they said they were cancelling EVs entirely and plan to be an ICE only company, sure.

https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/277409/volvo-cars-to-be-fully-electric-by-2030

Not sure where you live, but 8kWh/day is very low for a house. You’d have to have gas heat/hot water and no/minimal AC to get anywhere close to that. Just putting this out there for perspective - almost nobody will get 2 weeks of power out of 90-100 kWh, and if they do it’s usually because they’re burning other fuels. I’m in Colorado in an all electric home and use 3x as much as you. Totally agree that we dont need such bloated EVs though.

Agreed. The unfortunate conclusion here is they think that many people (particularly voters they feel are critical to this election) don’t actually care about the climate. They’re probably right too. So while the DNC platform is clear on their stance, they don’t see it as a winning issue from a campaign perspective. Frankly that’s not the worst outcome, I care more about action than campaign slogans. They need to win in order to do anything.

Might need to use an oil with a lower smoke point than olive.

Another example of the legal system serving the wrong parties. Somehow NIMBYs keep blocking housing, transit, wind/solar, but when it comes to fossil extraction then they suddenly have no power.

The problem is the roads are already there. Like sure we could redevelop the entire area over decades but we could also add some speed bumps like next week while we get around to the hard work.

It’s a fascinating topic. It’s top of my mind too - we have had very reliable power historically (Colorado) but in the last year had a major preemptive wildfire shutdown and a few other shutdowns (whereas literally less than 5 minutes of outage the last decade). I also got rid of my gas service last year and fully electrified. I have solar, but was waiting until battery prices dropped before going that route. Figured I’d yolo in the meantime, but that assumption has me increasingly on edge. From a climate perspective, I do hate to see a renewed interest in gas but I get why. We need cheaper batteries and standardized V2H/V2G asap.

My knowledge is probably even lower, but I do recall hearing that most of the US law is just copied from UK law as of the 1700’s, with some divergence since then.

Right, but remember only like 60% of homes have gas anyway, so that’s not necessarily the baseline from a resiliency perspective. And a huge chunk of those aren’t actually prepared to operate without electricity either. So while I agree that resiliency is worth focusing on, we should also look holistically about what gas can/cannot do and the associated costs relative to electrification/solar/storage. A modern gas home will still need a backup generator to run condensing hot water/furnace and there’s a significant cost to whole home generators, so it’s not all fun and games just having gas appliances.

That’s where local battery storage/EVs come in. Also passivhaus in and of itself is a form of resiliency - if the power goes out during a cold snap, the house will stay warm for quite some time, and the dozen kWh in a battery or the several dozen in an EV go alot further. Efficiency has a multiplying effect.

Are you looking at the same article as me? On both the NYT app and the website using this link, I see a heading that exactly matches the data displayed. It’s a dynamic page that adjusts the figure as you scroll and the heading clearly matches the data. It says “abnormally hot nights” in every bar chart, and temperature for all of the line graphs. NYT has some really nice visualizations, with the notable exception of the potato graphic the other week with your states electric production sources - that was hot dog shit. There’s a different baseline temp for the hot night graphs depending on the city - this clearly responds to a low level baseline pre-warming.

I showed this to my partner who isn’t an engineer and she thought it made perfect sense too. Not that my anecdotes are special, but I truly don’t understand the confusion.

What’s this “radical change” and why haven’t you made it happen yet? Like what are you actually doing other than shouting into the void about other people doing the wrong thing? Even if someone reads your post and is like “yeah that’s right” what are they actually supposed to do next? What rules are we supposed to break?

It sounds like a system design issue, i.e. they always intended there to be a “primary” heating system below 25F and it was sized as such. For every customer like you, there are 3 more that want to keep a fossil backup system in place so that’s where the market is. Unfortunately that also means customers need to be very educated themselves to select the “right” opinion. There are also downsides to oversizing heat pumps too, and typically oversizing is very common since manual J is overly conservative and installers are used to oversizing fossil systems. Your best bet is more weatherization to decrease heating load so that your HP can meet that load. Yes capacity drops as temperatures decrease, but good ccASHP can maintain full output closer to 0F. Do you have like a 1 ton mini for a whole home in Maine?

Isn’t the carbon were releasing now from fossil fuels carbon that used to be in the atmosphere? What self reinforcing mechanisms will allow for temperatures roughly beyond what has already occurred, which still sustained life?

This is exactly the calculation China made as they’ve positioned themselves to be the region doing a lot better. If everyone would realize this and fight for their slice of the pie, we’d be doing a lot better.

It will still be a dramatic improvement because these packs will be able to hold the max charge that the charger can support for much longer. E.g., a car that can hold 350kW from 0-90 is much better than one that peaks at 350kW for 2 seconds before dropping to 150 or 100kW for 40-90%.

I think you’re conflating two different things. There are a variety of social factors that affect age cohorts differently, and a lot of that comes down to the experience during formative years. We are a product of our environment in many ways, and it’s not nonsense to study and opine on these shared experiences and how they shape us. Class solidarity is an entirely different subject. You likely do have more in common with your social class across generations, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have anything in common with wealthy millennials. I wouldn’t let lazy journalism own the concept of generations itself.