Maybe need to get induction instead of radiant? Induction is much more efficient.

Really exciting development for the climate change mitigation toolkit. Let’s hope it’s not too challenging or costly to scale up and deploy.

The recovery time, aka first hour rating, should be in the specs for the models to find one that suits your needs. There’s more detailed research on them available as well if you’re so inclined.

You can, but not as a heat pump so you wouldn’t get all the efficiency gains and it will very often end up being more expensive to run than gas tankless in the near term.

Yeah, those are all good points and certainly factor in. There are objective studies about human comfort preferences used for building design. I expect OPs question is a roundabout way to ultimately ask about comfort preferences.

I do 80F during the day and 78F at night in the pacific northwest US. It usually gets cold enough at night that opening windows will cool my house to the low 70s overnight. In the winter I have it set to 68F. I use ceiling fans and appropriate clothing to stay comfortable within those parameters.

I can see how it’s strange on the surface, but ultimately the carbon emissions wouldn’t be there if the polluting activity was not funded. So to whom would the carbon emissions be attributed otherwise? Just the CEO?

The study’s primary metric appears to include both supplier and producer emissions proportional to income and investments. What alternative do you suggest?

I can see why you would think that happens, but it either doesn’t happen, or it does and the shit water gets washed away by the continuous spray of clean water just like taking a shower.

I actually don’t mind it, especially in the summer. You can get heated ones that cost more. Maybe my anus isn’t that temperature sensitive?

How does getting in the shower save time over the 10 seconds it takes to spray your bhole?

A bidet. You can install it yourself in 20 minutes and enjoy a lifetime of cleaner buttholes and save on tp.

It’s time for this unfortunate headline to go away. I see a variation of this posted in nearly every thread about climate and emissions, a complex topic that the average person understandably doesn’t know much about beyond some headline that stuck with them. Snopes has a good article debunking The Guardian’s grossly misleading headline.

To see the actual sources of GHG emissions, at least in the US, the EPA has good resources. In short, agriculture is 10% (methane from cows fits here), transportation is 28%, electric power generation is 25% (fossil fuel power plants generating electricity), residential and commercial buildings are 13% (in practice, the building sector overall is about a third of emissions after attributing the emissions from the electric power slice. Residential and commercial buildings use 75% of the power generated in the US), and finally industry is 23% (again, a bit more factoring in their share of the electric power emissions. Industry uses about a quarter of all power in the US).

As you can see, emissions, or at least GHG emissions, are spread across the economy. Some industries are heavy polluters (e.g. cement manufacturing), but that’s ultimately to make products for the market, even if they do have plenty of room to improve efficiency and reduce emissions, as do all other areas of the economy, especially buildings.

I can’t wait to switch mine to induction as well. I always run the fume hood with gas but it still feels like it’s not capturing most of the fumes

Do you strictly have to deprive others of content to be stealing? Taking away potential revenue, stealing someone’s design, etc. are also forms of stealing. If a gaming company lifts some art someone shared and put it in their game without compensating the artist or getting permission, would that not be stealing? They’re not taking away that content from anyone else - so is that ok?