That Wix is Israeli.

My house is a relatively normal size (1800 square feet), and it still takes more than three full minutes for water in my shower to reach full temperature when I run it straight hot. If I also turn on both faucets in my bathroom, I can get that down to about twenty or thirty seconds, which is barely tolerable.

At my mom's house in Tennessee, the distance the water has to travel is comparable, but it takes only ten seconds or so.

It's a huge downside to all the water-saving showerheads and faucets that were forced upon us here in California decades ago. We waste a lot of time and energy to make up for a water shortage that exists only because of decades of politicians being short-sighted and kicking the desalination can down the road over and over so that the money doesn't get spent on their watch.

Well, that would strongly reduce future harm...but no the harm they've already done.

That's not clear. The problems are real, but some of them already have solutions, and perhaps the others will eventually have solutions also. Also all of the alternatives have their own problems.

The folks working on sodium based batteries have made tremendous progress recently, but there's no proof that analogous advances aren't possible for lithium. At any particular time, you weigh your options, and decide based on the choices available, but that doesn't tell you what the choices will be next week. For that matter, lab results often don't scale commercially. So take this article with a few grains of salt.

Actually lithium should make more powerful and lighter batteries. That's been known for nearly a century. The details come when it turns to practical design.

I forget the details, but I seem to recall that lithium should be half again as powerful per unit weight as sodium. (That might be an underestimate.) But this doesn't include things like flammability, growth of metallic extrusions, etc. Dealing with the details can easily be enough to change that balance.

Other related terms:

  * Pseudo-quotation: Putting a paraphrase or the general "gist" of someone’s argument inside quotation marks, rather than their literal verbatim words. Acts structurally like a quote, but semantically is a summary.
  * 'Fictive Direct Speech (Esther Pascual): The structure of direct speech used to express a non-conversational concept, such as a belief, attitude, or general stance.
  * Constructed Dialogue (Deborah Tannen): Used for "reported speech" - when people "quote" others in conversation, they are rarely reciting a literal transcript. Instead, they construct dialogue to dramatize a stance, represent a general attitude, or summarize a complex argument in a digestible way.

Sneer quotes (also called scare quotes) are similar, in that they summarize a person's stance, but have the distinction of also being dismissive of the person / stance as well.

That's not what "sneer quotes" do.

(And the quotes in the above are neither direct quotation nor sneer quotes, but use-mention distinction quotes, which let the sentence "know" that the thing in the quotes is the word/phrase itself, not what it refers to)

(And the quotes in the above are signaling quotes, to convey that a word is being used in an unconventional manner; it's a "clever" way to distance yourself from the word)

(And the quotes in the above are irony quotes....)

Translation: A company that has the potential to benefit from regulation by squeezing out competitors wants more regulation.

I'm not saying they're not right, just that it seems awfully convenient for a company specializing in pumps that recirculate data center water to want efficiency regulations that would push customers towards their most efficient (and thus presumably most high-margin) pumps.

Instead of having your hot water fan out in a tree, you wire it like a token ring with a return pipe, where each faucet only has a short bit of pipe between it and the ring. Then, you have a pump to circulate hot water through the ring-shaped pipe network. That way, it takes half a second to get hot water instead of half a minute or more.

Sure. I'd imagine most hardware vendors will want it. I'm just saying that the wording, at least as described in the summary, is... problematic at best.

Yeah, I've been using canisters, and they're expensive and a chore (and because of that, it encourages me to give the plants much less than would be ideal).

The basic process is potassium carbonate/bicarbonate swing absorption. Potassium carbonate absorbs CO2 (and H2O) from the air at low temperatures , forming bicarbonate, but the bicarbonate emits CO2 (and H2O) at high temperatures. So the system has two modes: one, a powerful radial blower blows air through a pumice bed packed with potassium carbonate so that it absorbs CO2 (more specifically, it first absorbs H2O, and then CO2); and in the other, the fan is shut off and a PTC heater turns on to heat the pumice bed.

I'm trying to make the whole system as passive as possible. Since the fan is so powerful (you have to move a LOT of air to capture CO2), it's designed to blow dampers shut or open that control its path, while a different path opens up when the fan is not on. The PTC heater being on will automatically force the fan off. I've also set up (cross my fingers whether it works...) a weight-based system to control fan/heater switching. The core is PPS-CF (super heat tolerant) and mounted on springs, so it should move downward as it absorbs more moisture and CO2, and when it's full, it should force the fan off (even if my greenhouse controller hasn't requested CO2, aka triggered the PTC heater). And when the PTC heater is on, it rises from losing H2O and CO2 mass, and if it rises too much, that triggers a switch to force the fan off.

I'm also perhaps overcomplicating it and making a rod for my own back, in that I've designed it so that both modes have the air travel through a system of (also 3d printed) heat exchangers (in general, heat exchangers working with air have no issue with being made of plastic, because the heat flow from the air to the wall is slower than heat transfer across the wall). So these are big and made of multiple parts, in order to not slow down the airflow from the blower too much. But the idea is that the CO2+H2O flowing outwards cools and deposits H2O in the exchanger (then a secondary heat exchanger re-heats it to drive the convection force), while in capture mode, the incoming air can use that H2O instead of having to rely just on atmospheric H2O (which is viable, but does impose a capture delay). And of course, it helps maintain a warmer temperature inside the core on very cold days that might slow down the reaction (it's designed to be able to be mounted outside; the bulk of it will be printed in ASA).

Right now I'm in that annoying phase of prototyping where you print chunks of parts out, see if they actually print right ("whoops, there are supports in this area, but I CAN'T REACH THAT!"), actually fit together right (for example, dampers not jamming in their paths), the non-printed parts actually fit (I keep screwing up the mount for the blower, lol), that sort of stuff.

Dunno, but it's a fun project, and hopefully it will work :) Then the question for me (if it actually works well) will be, just release the plans open source, or actually manufacture them (and if so, continue 3d printing, or switch to injection moulding - though that would take redesign!). Because I've not found anything else like it on the market. There are some greenhouse CO2 capture systems out there, but they're gigantic and super-expensive, with even the monthly service contracts being in the hundreds of dollars. This - because it relies on the super stable potassium carbonate/bicarbonate swing absorption cycle (even though it's not the most efficient) - should last basically forever with minimal maintenance (though it is designed for maintenance - for example, I've designed it so that the switch set points that determine when the core is fully saturated vs. fully unsaturated, can be adjusted with a screwdriver)

I do think your "you can't print horizontal holes" in PETG thing is pretty hilarious, BTW, because it's an open admission that you're terrible at understanding how to set print parameters ;)

I don't plan to link anything with my name to you, so you can believe whatever you want, though if you'd like I'll 3d print something with your name on it, with horizontal holes, in PETG and post it online for you. And yes, I have a BA in Horticulture (subfield: greenhouse cultivation) from Fjölbrautaskóli Su[th]urlands (originally Landbúna[th]arháskólinn, in Hveragerði), along with a BS in CS - again, I don't plan to link anything with my name on it, so you're free to believe whatever you want, if it shocks you that people have more than one field. Just like you're free to believe whatever nonsense you want about forests.

https://carbonneutral.com.au/carbon-jargon-how-trees-capture-and-store-carbon/

Age also has an influence when thinking about collective communities of trees rather than individuals. Younger forests typically grow faster and absorb more carbon overall because trees can be crowded together when they’re small.

When forests consist of middle-aged trees, they also capture and store relatively high amounts of carbon, because middle-aged trees sequester more carbon than younger trees, and if any trees die, they are replaced by younger trees that grow more quickly.

Old-growth forests have a less fluctuating carbon cycle. There are usually fewer trees in an old-growth forest, and the large old trees dominate by blocking out light for younger trees.

https://www.stateforesters.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/NCASI22_Forest_Carbon_YoungVsOld_print.pdf

Forests of different ages play different roles in removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in wood. Old forests
have accumulated more carbon than younger forests; however, young forests grow rapidly, removing much more CO2
each year from the atmosphere than an older forest covering the same area. Managing forests to avoid large emissions
from the loss of old trees while rapidly removing CO2 from the atmosphere through young forest growth can provide both
storage and sequestration benefi ts

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/forests-and-global-change/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2025.1702442/full

During the initial years of stand development, either after a new establishment or a stand from regeneration after disturbance, the losses due to RA (autotrophic root respiration) and RH (soil organic matter decomposition) exceed the carbon sequestration resulting in forest ecosystems typically functioning as net carbon emission sources. The duration of this phase varies based on growth rates, site conditions, climate variables, and post-disturbance effects. Rapidly growing forests then transition to carbon sinks within approximately 10-20 years as increasing leaf area and biomass accumulation enhance carbon uptake and eventually surpasses carbon losses from respiration and decomposition. NEP reaches its maximum at an intermediate stand age, after which age-related declines in net primary production (NPP) occur due to reduced nutrient availability, increased mortality (Ryan, 1991; Hartmann and Trumbore, 2016), changes in stomatal conductance, and decreases in photosynthetic efficiency, which shift the balance between carbon uptake and respiratory losses (Bond-Lamberty et al., 2004; Gower et al., 1996; Tang et al., 2014), so that old-growth forests frequently function as a minor carbon sink, or remain carbon neutral, or even become a net emissions source, depending on various factors such as climate, disturbance history, and species composition (Chang et al., 2020; He et al., 2012).

The traditional view is that old-growth forests are roughly carbon neutral - that new growth happens roughly at the same rate as decay. This is not entirely accurate (esp. e.g. in boggy areas or other long-term-accumulation-prone habitats), but by and large, yes, old-growth forests are primarily neutral. Carbon-bearing matter grows, dies, and decays. Certain types of compounds decay faster than others - for example, lignin is humus-forming, and humus is very decay resistant, but is not immune to decay, and is lost over time from the soil. It requires anoxia or mineral binding to protect over geological timeframes. In general, the rates of this, if present at all, are orders of magnitude lower than than the influxes from photosynthesis and loss to decay.

To be clear, this is not that individual trees store less carbon as they age - just the opposite, rates continue to grow as a trees get older. But every tree is fated to die, and when it does, it overwhelmingly rots. Mature forests are in balance. It is forests that are not in balance - e.g. young forests, say 20-40 years old - that are massive at net removing CO2 from the atmosphere, because growth is fast but decay is slow (because not much has yet died).

TL/DR:
* Clearcut forest: terrible emission source. Lots of decay going on / soil carbon loss, even if immediately replanted. Takes a decade or more to go back to net sequestration
* Young growing forest: peaking at 20-40 years, massively net sequestering. Lots of new growth, comparatively little decay.
* Old growth forest: roughly in balance between growth and decay. Stores lots of carbon, but does not net sequester much, if any, carbon.

I hope that helps.

Literally just look at the spec sheets from Bambu above you:

Max bridging length: 30mm vs. 30mm (tie)

Ah, you want things to fall apart more quickly.

It's always been a tradeoff, and those in power have always wanted to grab more control. That's what inspired, e.g, the Magna Carta.