5 ms·
Mainly because right now, any significant endeavour is tied to using massive amounts of fossil fuel. As long as it will be the case, we won't be able to start
by pyrale 7y ago
Mainly because right now, any significant endeavour is tied to using massive amounts of fossil fuel.
As long as it will be the case, we won't be able to start new, large scale projects without jeopardizing our ability to live on earth.
- keiferski 7y ago> Mainly because right now, any significant endeavour is tied to using massive amounts of fossil fuel. But does that actually matter in space? I am asking out of genuine curiosity here: does using fossil fuels in space have any real downside? There is no atmosphere, ergo no greenhouse effect. The vastness of space would seem to swallow up any sort of pollution.
- muzani 7y agoThat's... a different question. Where would you find fossils on other planets? The article says Titan has seas of hydrocarbon, but otherwise Moon and Mars, it's just not an option. One reason why Musk has invested so much in non-fossil fuel tech is not so much to save this planet but to operate things on other planets.
- keiferski 7y agoSure, but my broad question was essentially: are there any negatives to using "dirty" forms of energy like nuclear, coal, or oil in space?
- garmaine 7y ago> are there any negatives to using "dirty" forms of energy like nuclear, coal, or oil One of those is not like the others. Nuclear is the cleanest form of energy we have, cleaner than even wind or solar power.
- keiferski 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
- garmaine 7y agoIf I were snarky I’d reply with the wiki link to industrial waste. Here’s an article with details: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23...
- keiferski 7y agoYou are already being snarky and this conversation is not very useful. I was simply asking if there are any downsides to using energy sources (that give off dangerous waste products) in space. I didn't mention anything about solar being dirtier than nuclear, nor did I ask for some kind of debate on the topic.
- PeterisP 7y agoYou can manufacture burnable 'fossil' fuels (usually from water and co2) using solar energy. We don't do that on Earth much because it's simpler and cheaper just to mine it.
- JdeBP 7y agoStuff that you throw away in space does not go away. It tends to go into orbit, an orbit that either intersects yours later on or intersects someone else's. It may even go into orbit around you, depending from circumstances.
- pyrale 7y agoThe energy used to mine metals, to forge steel, to move parts and people around, the production needed to sustain settlement happens on earth, not in space. Any significant program to live outside earth will require investment never seen before on the ground. If this investment is done using current tech, the impact on carbon emissions won't be sustainable. It doesn't mean we should not do it, but a clean source of energy is a prerequisite to a successful space settlement.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoSpaceX's new Starship uses methane, which can be created from CO2 and energy. That's how they're going to refuel them on Mars; there is no reason they can't do that on Earth too. If it is made from atmospheric CO2 and clean energy it is carbon neutral.
- 101404 7y agoMethane is a "greenhouse gas" itself, worse than co2. Mostly a problems from cattle digesting food. So burning it actually reduces climate change.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoThe methane is burnt and turned into CO2, it's not released.
- jessaustin 7y agoI thought you were discussing rocketry? Releasing the exhaust is the point of the whole endeavor.
- bryanlarsen 7y agoThe exhaust is CO2 and H2O. CH4 + O2 -> CO2 + H2O
- 101404 7y agoYes, so if you burn methane that already exists, you produce an equal amount of CO2. Climate change neutral.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- 101404 7y agoThat's incorrect.