We do use a lot of energy and hardware to heat the source zones and to treat the extracted fluids. The question is not whether in situ thermal remediation (ISTR) has a higher impact than doing nothing or doing a little (e.g., monitored natural attenuation (MNA), soil vapor extraction (SVE), pump and treat), it is how thermal treatment compares with the alternatives of similar effectiveness (Ding et al 2019). In this regard, thermal stands on its own, with the only other comparable remedy being excavation. This is particularly true for fire-training areas with elevated concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a very recalcitrant set of contaminants.