I think you're missing the point of the analogy...

We are forced to share the atmosphere. Any reduction in pollution is better than no reduction at all (even if it's still a net increase, because it didn't increase as much as it could have) and it does not matter where those emissions come from. Do you agree or disagree with this? Because if you agree, then the argument "Why should we do anything to reduce our emissions when 'they' are producing emissions too" is complete nonsense.

Sure, there's always going to be emissions just like there's always going to be some urine in the water. But you see, the emissions are high enough to be causing real problems - so imagine that the pool is so polluted that it's visibly discolored if that helps you appreciate the scale of the problem. Still going for a swim?

The analogy falls apart of course, because nobody is forced to share a swimming pool. We don't have any choice when it comes to the planet and its atmosphere though.

As an aside; not terribly worried about the chlorine. I'm more worried about the chloramines - the chemical compounds that give swimming pools that "chlorine smell." Chloramines are the product of the hypochlorite (the form of chlorine used in pools) reacting with the other stuff in the water, like urine. Chloramines cause eye, skin, and respiratory irritation. So yeah in reality peeing in a treated swimming pool actually, literally, creates toxic chemicals that physically harm you and everyone else in the area. I should add that to the analogy.
=Smidge=

Okay so, for the record, you are perfectly okay with pissing in the pool as long as you're not the only one.

Glad we could set that straight, along with verifying that you do not understand how the atmosphere works.
=Smidge=

Hi; it seems like you completely fail to understand how the atmosphere works.

Let me ask you this; Do you feel it's okay for someone to piss in a public swimming pool, just because there is already definitely some amount of piss in it?

Any reduction is a reduction. You're just upset that you might have to be the responsible one and be inconvenienced by getting out of the pool before relieving yourself.
=Smidge=

Their primary business is buying and reselling surplus. Think one of those TV shows where people buy abandoned storage units, except commercial liquidation auctions instead of random people's junk.

I buy stuff from them fairly regularly, and once in a while they have something amazing or a real bargain, but you have to treat it more like a flea market than a store. I got some used 12x48 RGB video wall display panels for example, and deeply regret only buying four of them...
=Smidge=

ICE seems to be arresting more innocent people than criminals, but of course we have no way of actually knowing because they don't get trials before being deported. Fuck you, by the way...

But this guy is Romanian; not brown enough for the goons to bother with. Trump LOVES appointing criminals to cabinet positions though. All this guy needs to do is kiss the ring and he's got at least a pardon.
=Smidge=

Sorry, under this administration the best we can hope for is 3 years as head of National Security Council and retirement in some topical nation without an extradition treaty.

=Smidge=

"When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like thumbs."

=Smidge=

Meanwhile, writing a bespoke algorithm to handle the task is a collage undergraduate homework assignment, and would probably do a significantly better job.

=Smidge=

> I'm going off the article summary

It's pretty naive to assume that this is specifically and solely about air conditioners if that's all you're going on. My pickup from this is "air conditioners" is a stand-in for any electrical loads that occur during peak times when people get home. Cooking dinner, doing laundry, home entertainment, etc. etc.

Per the actual article (emphasis mine); "At their daily peak, around 8pm, batteries can provide as much as 30% of the state's electricity."

Solar production basically ends at 6PM. Peak is at 8PM. Batteries help bridge that gap.
=Smidge=

You say all this as if it's not already something that's common practice. Every thermostat installed in like the past 30 years is electronic timer based, if not 7-day programmable with 4+ setpoints per 24 hours. This isn't a peak power problem; it does not solve the problem of needing to keep the equipment running into the evening.

> I pre-cool my apartment to 65 until 10AM

I'm going to guess your apartment is both fairly small and surrounded on five sides by other apartments, because that doesn't work in a standalone house unless a significant portion of it is made of stone. Light frame housing like what's most common gets real warm real quick.
=Smidge=

> they should instead use at least part of that surplus to run AC systems to bring the temp down ahead of when people need it

That buys you maybe an hour and a half, two hours of reasonable comfort. Assuming you absolutely crank the AC and get that room down to borderline uncomfortable cold, once you turn it off the heat gain through the building plus internal heat sources and you'll be back to uncomfortably warm before dinner time.

Thermal storage is a thing but the house itself is not a thermal storage system.
=Smidge=

"its amazing how chatgpt knows everything about subjects I know nothing about, but is wrong like 40% of the time in things im an expert on. not going to think about this any further"

> They are participating in the same economic model you are

You sure about that? Last I checked, I don't have any way to monetize my web browsing habits.

I read websites to get information for myself. They scrape websites to aggregate information to analyze, repackage, and resell to others. These are not the same economic model at all.
=Smidge=

> Google says: 38% of Renters Live in Apartment Buildings

Okay. I mean Google says a lot of stupid and wrong shit these days now that they have an LLM regurgitating half-digested website slurry into your face, but whatever. We'll take that number at face value.

(Note: This query result will expire in 60 days from this posting. You'll have to go back to the link I made earlier and select "Vehicles" as the analysis and "HOMEOWN" as the row variable to refresh it)

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnhts.ornl.gov%2Fde%2Fwork%2F...

Out of 232.8M vehicle owners in the US, 46.7M rent their home or apartment. That's 20%.

So if we take your uncited Google number of 38% and interpret that as "38% of people who rent their homes live in apartment buildings" (because you didn't link to a source or even tell us what your query was, so fuck knows what Google was actually tell you) then that's 38% of the 20%, or 7.6%.

7.6% of vehicle owners live in apartment buildings.

I also didn't dismiss anything. I explicitly said, quote, "EV owning as an apartment renter is definitely a hurdle, and much can be done to improve the situation, and we shouldn't ignore the problem."

My challenge is to the claim that EV charging for people who live in apartments is a major hurdle for EV adoption. It is not, because not only do apartment dwellers represent a small portion of vehicle owners (less than 20% - perhaps even less than 8% with your "data"), but EV adoption as a whole has so much more room to grow (currently only 8% of all vehicles are electric) even if they are perpetually out of reach of apartment dwellers.
=Smidge=

> Those numbers come from a survey of existing EV drivers

No they aren't. Just vehicle owners, electric or otherwise.

Roughly 20% of people who own a vehicle of any type rent/lease, instead of own, their place of residence.

That 20% includes condos and rental homes, not just apartments. The post I was replying to was very specifically mentioning apartments, so apartments, being a subset of the 20%, is necessarily smaller than 20%.
=Smidge=