For externalities or immediate health benefits, heatpumps are pretty defensible. However, solar isn't a saint. Rare earth/mineral mining is hazardous plus only a fraction of solar panels are getting recycled properly.
> this is doable in harsh Canadian winters with negligible solar and it breaks even
It's doable alright. OP got subsidies (See comment re: risk free loan and grants). Talk about externalities, this is definitely wealth transfer.
The wealth transfer you are alluding to, it is from the poor (everyone) to the rich (fossil fuel billionaires), isn't it?
Can you please share your definition of "whataboutism?" And explain how bringing up a single alternative (plus flaw) is addressing the critique and NOT changing the subject?
This is pretty much the same as accusing a colleague of insulting you through PR they asked you to review, because there's an added line that says:
class HOLEInstance ...
- "But wait, it's no such thing; it's a Handle for OLE component instances - it's part of support for COM stuff in those legacy reports..."
- "AHA! See also here, dear readers:"
class HOLEClientSite // TODO: : public HOEComponent?
This is what pointing out "whataboutism" and "dog whistles" is. Artificial, cross-cutting pattern that match easily, but don't correspond to any real phenomena.
Weaponized pareidolia.
Nobody talks like this. The parent shared they would be far less likely to have moved forward without the subsidies. Now, you implied that someone (me) pointing out a tradeoff of solar subsidies must be non-critical of O&G subsidies, yet you provided no proof that I wasn't ALSO critical of O&G subsidies.
Meanwhile, I would love to learn more about the financials of your non-profit, ChargeFoundation.org that has mailing to a residence in Austin, TX. I'm not seeing any 990s.[0] Can you please post your foundation's financial reports on your site?
[0] https://app.candid.org/profile/15315388/charge-foundation-93...
If you believe the externalities of solar are a problem, what do you propose to do instead? Should we subsidize some other alternative? Redirect resources from oil to nuclear? Other?
You're making different/absolutist arguments. Even the most ardent electrification proponents agree that you can't replace downstream chemicals/materials.
As for subsidies, you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.
But, its perfectly okay for govt to spend on fossil fuel subsidies? You draw the line when the subsidies are for solar, heatpumps, etc?
> you're thinking too narrow if you feel it necessary to only spend limited government budget on energy to improve lives.
I also did not use the word “only”. Governments are quite capable of doing more than one thing at once. Should governments not consider spending money on energy to improve lives?
Solar cells are made of silicon, not rare earths.
For solar, you need to mine ONCE for 25 - 50 years. Fossil fuels are burnt every second continuously. Perhaps you can do the math if its not obvious?
If this is happening, then you shouldn't be using that furnace/room!
Something beyond the furnace is not configured right.
The problem is likely "between the keyboard and the chair." ;-)
A modern furnace works via a heat exchanger, where the combustion produced pollutants never mix with the indoor air being pushed through. All pollutants are expelled outside via a property functioning chimney. This is one reason why you should have the furnace (and chimney function) inspected annually. Aging heat exchangers will show hotspots before there is a possibility of air being mixed, giving plenty of time to plan for a replacement. Of course there is a possibility of failure, which is why you should have a carbon monoxide detector.
It also doesn't include the negative externalities because of tragedy of commons. Sadly, these kind of flawed 'financial' calculations are widespread.
What is inspiring from the OPs comment is that this is doable in harsh Canadian winters with negligible solar and it breaks even. Most of the world is living in significantly more sunshine, so it should work out a lot better financially for >99% of the population.