> Aside: that LTM article made me think of a complaint of a friend of mine on that the solar panels on his house are almost never at optimal efficiency due to temperature. At which point I asked him if active cooling of solar panels using heat transport + a heat buffer underneath the house + re-using said heat in winter might be a win-win solution for that - he thought it was a good idea but also too ambitious a project for him to undertake.

Yes, this idea has occured to other people. They are called PVT Solar Panels (PVT=Photovoltaic + Thermal).

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com//2008/09/29/waste-not-want-n...

High pressure compressed air storage isn't really practical for widespread home use. High pressure compressors require a lot of maintenance, much more than batteries. The moving parts and seals wear out and have to be replaced. Some lubrication is needed. And if you do it wrong there's a significant risk of fire.

You're replying (indirectly) to a linked article which cites 30 sources to make its case. Not saying that you're wrong, but it would be nice if you have some data to back up your claims.

The article is not peer reviewed, nor are most of the citations. And none of them go into the details of the cost and skills required for maintenance.

If you want data, go to your local gas supplier and talk to the technicians who maintain the high-pressure compressors. It's not rocket surgery but still way beyond the abilities of most homeowners.

> The article is not peer reviewed, nor are most of the citations.

Sure, the article is not peer reviewed. Neither is your comment. Dismissing the citations as mostly not peer reviewed is just disingenuous; the majority of them are from journals on energy, conferences on applied energy, and other relevant fields of research.

Using "the local gas supplier and the technicians maintaining high-pressure compressors" as an counter-argument is just as flawed, unless you're seriously claiming that they are more likely to be a source of peer reviewed knowledge about the latest developments in compressible energy storage than the work of the cited researchers.

Look, I'm not saying that this is ready for usage; the article itself ends with:

> In conclusion, small-scale compressed air energy storage could be a promising alternative to batteries, but the research is still in its early stages – the first study on small-scale CAES was published in 2010 – and new ideas will continue to shed light on how best to develop the technology. At the moment, there are no commercial products available, and setting up your own system can be quite intimidating if you are new to pneumatics. Simply getting hold of the right components and fittings is a headache, as these come in a bewildering variety and are only sold to industries.

But you're being dismissive of a technology in quick development without even engaging with the article.

These ideas are very cool, but I don't believe they will see succeed in the mainstream marketplace without price signals.

I also don't trust government bureaucrats to figure this all out, either.

A carbon tax basically would just reward good ideas in the market, and punish the bad ones.

However, almost no one supports it. You get some big figures like Musk and the economist, Mankiw; but both the left and the right of mainstream politics don't want it. The right doesn't want new taxes nor to particularly combat global warming; the left is ideologically opposed to market-based solutions and instead supports big government/power-grab solutions--specifically cap and trade.

TL;DR consider supporting a carbon tax if you like these ideas and want to combat global warming

> the left is ideologically opposed to market-based solutions and instead supports big government/power-grab solutions--specifically cap and trade.

Carbon taxes have a substantial base of support on the left (possibly more than cap and trade, whose base of support is more centrist.)

Now, carbon-tax supporters are likely to support cap-and-trade as better than nothing, but that's different than preferring it and opposing carbon taxes.

The left is by no means a monolithic block in these respects. A lot of the left - perhaps not so visible in the US - are ideologically opposed to big government. Libertarianism started with an anarchist, after all (Joseph Dejacques; who criticised Proudhon - the "founder" of anarchism - for being a "mere moderate anarchist, liberal but not libertarian").

Lots of left-wing ideologies favour using market mechanisms this way, and I wish more would - you can want to use market-mechanisms this way whether or not you're for free-market competition in terms of valuation and trade of company shares.

Among the USA war media's most important tasks is the maintenance of the false binary. They've done yeoman's work recently: how else could one explain that mainstream progressive thought is now to constantly foment nuclear war with Russia? (I'll quote Chancellor Merkel here: "I think it must once again become normal for Russian and American presidents to meet.") Alternatively, how is it that the party of Lincoln is now prominently associated with Nazis? (Go ahead, tell me one of these observations is wrong...)

In reality, the two "choices" imposed upon us are Coke and Pepsi, two noxious compounds that require extended chemical analysis to differentiate. They both want more war, all the time, in every case, for whatever reason. The real reason, of course, is so that they may skim some of those sweet armaments manufacturing profits. No it's not a conspiracy. Important influencers know which side of their toast is buttered, but they are a small minority and they don't need to coordinate in secret. Everyone who doesn't revolve from bureaucratic post to public office to lobbyist to executive board to think-tank sinecure, is a mere useful idiot. If 10-20% of American voters ever learn about horseshoe theory, they'll be screwed. Therefore the media mentions that about as often as they mention e.g. Libya or Yemen.

So, it's little surprise that we Americans have no clue about leftist thought.

I was mostly with you until the "horseshoe theory" stuff, which seems out of place. If anything, "horseshoe theory" is a recent fabrication to reinforce the notion that the space outside of our false-binary choices are all invalid, and equally so. Social Democrats, Anarchists, and Nazis all get sort of lumped into the don't-even-think-about-it box together.

I'm sure it has been used that way! I'm thinking more about the areas of agreement that exist among people with different politics. Maybe we don't agree on the exact right destination for e.g. some $2T chunk of money, but we agree that it shouldn't be used to kill random people overseas. That ain't centrist! I occasionally lurk over at Caitlin Johnstone's site and I get a kick out of the "cross-ideological collaboration" she's doing.

I suspect you're conflating the old and new meanings of "liberal".

The only place I used "liberal" was in a quote of Dejacques from the 19th century. Of course it's the "old" (rather: the one still used everywhere but in the US) meaning, as someone adhering to classical liberal thought.

Nothing was conflated.