silence7

These things exist, but are quite uncommon compared with poorly vented stoves, or people who have a vent for their stove but don't run the fan at the necessary high power

There is no paywall. Just scroll down

The common kitchen appliance plays an outsized role in exposure to nitrogen dioxide, a toxic air pollutant.

The problem with that approach is that insurance works when one member of the group loses a house to fire. It doesn't work when the whole community burns down.

What you can do is have local government conduct risk reduction, which means like things like requiring building improvements, zone zero, and fuel reduction in surrounding areas.

Yes. That is the link I posted. Not quite sure what you are trying to communicate

Youre going to have to look at a spec sheet, but the stoves with a built-in battery tend to designed to draw a constant low amperage as they charge, and then be able to cook about three meals from the battery. Very different from stoves without a battery.

There are a few models of induction stove which include a large battery to run them by charging from 120v. Stoves are also kind of unique in that they have far less effective venting of exhaust than other appliances, so the health risk from them is much larger.

If youre able to get enough sunlight to charge the stove, its worth thinking about.

The problem with being at the edge of town is that your whole community needs to be resistant to embers blowing in. That requires both a ton of specific mods to older structures, as well as measures like clearing zone zero.

Yes, and proprietary, but without details about what or why.

The thing about nuclear which drove us to large plants in the first place is that bigger reactors have significant economies of scale. Even with big reactors, nuclear has been very expensive to build, and hasn't really come down in cost in a long time, and takes a very long time to actually build.

By contrast, wind, solar, and storage are cheap and can be deployed rapidly in small increments with much more site flexibility.

So what's going on is a false promise of future nuclear being used to prevent the deployment of renewables now.

In the US, yes. Other countries do installers competing against each other over install price, which ends up dropping cost to about 1/4 of what it is in the US.

Basically they have a financing deal for the rooftop solar that's designed to have a lower monthly payment than the utility bill it displaces

A bunch of quacks profit because it creates an opening for them to provide treatments that are not evidence based, so you see chiropractors and "christian" donor-advised funds kicking in money