5 ms·

Open Sustainable Technology

67 points by protontypes 6y ago

konjin 6y ago
>For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent. The open distribution of sustainable technology, knowledge and data provides the basis for an ecological and economical global economy. This secures the access to vital resources such as stable climate, soil or water for everyone in the long term. [[citation needed]]
- cheph 6y ago
  Yeah, look I'm all for FLOSS, but I don't like this stating conjecture as fact nonsense that is the bread and butter of western elites and technocrats one bit. It poisons the well.
  - xenocratus 6y ago
    Just out of curiosity, are there any studies on the demographics of FLOSS support? I'm quite curious - with no specific goal in mind - about where the most ardent supporters are, in what fields they work, at what age, and so on.
    - throwaway1723 6y ago
      Your assumption is correct!
  - protontypes 6y ago
    The global scientific consensus shows that climate change is a real global problem. The many FLOSS projects on our list show that institutions around the world come to the same conclusion through a variety of open data sets and models. It is true that, as everywhere else, there are black sheep (i.e. Climategate). But these are the exception. We think that the discussion should include everyone interested in this development, we need an improved way to create "open facts". To keep the scientific discussion and discoveries as open and transparent as possible, we propose to built an "open fact pipeline". As seen in the slides related to this list (slide 10, https://protontypes.eu/protontypes_open_sustainable_technology.pdf https://protontypes.eu/protontypes_open_sustainable_technolo...). Proposed pipeline model: Open Models and Data -> Open Tools -> Open Execution and Server -> Open Results -> Open Discussion -> Open Science and Facts
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - cheph 6y ago
      Maybe I missed it, but none of what you said actually supports this claim: > For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent.
- protontypes 6y ago
  This is the central statement of our organization. Thank you for pointing it out. I have now made our organization as the originator of this statement clear.
- throwaway29389 6y ago
  Really? Walled gardens and monopolization of knowledge are good now?
  - konjin 6y ago
    From whom? Imagine how much better the world would be if we harvested your orgnans and gave them to a dozen people who would die without them. Yes it might be bad for you personally, like the author who starves, but think of the bigger picture.
    - jpetso 6y ago
      Now imagine a world where donors can voluntarily give one of two working kidneys to people who need them to survive, and you have a much closer analogy. Still not quite there, but at least not as unnecessarily alarmist.
      - konjin 6y ago
        Where's the world where open source devs get paid?
- tannhaeuser 6y ago
  F/OSS isn't so sustainable after all, as in can't sustain itself unless being dominated by a corp.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
sdesalas 6y ago
What about work being done on 4th Gen Nuclear? If anything is going to make a dent on climate change and provide a way forward for sustainable energy generation it would have to be scaling up the share of nuclear (to 25-50% of overall share) with new and safer reactor designs that move away from outdated cold war technology we are still using.
- pydry 6y ago
  it doesn't really make sense to scale up a form of power that's 2-4x the cost (more if you include research costs for newer designs) just because it can act as baseload. Over producing, demand shaping and storage will be cheaper. Nuclear is only financially viable because the government subsidizes it - usually to maintain weapons technology.
  - RealityVoid 6y ago
    So what if it's 2-4x the cost if it's clean? I assertthe externalities of pollution are afar more than 2-4x. I also strongly doubt that it _is_ 2-⁴x as expensive.
    - hannob 6y ago
      it's 2-4x the cost compared to other almost carbon free options.
    - pydry 6y ago
      I meant 2-4x the cost of equally carbon neutral technology. Solar and wind are almost absurdly cheap. It barely makes economic sense to build anything else.
- tdoering 6y ago
  Nuclear energy is of course a controversial topic. The main reason for not appearing on the list is that there are practically no open projects in this field. ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) apparently relies on open source software, but we could not find any open documentation for this project. (https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3316 https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3316) The Open100 project is similar. (https://www.open-100.com/ https://www.open-100.com/) We have found only one big project that is really open and active: Paramek (https://github.com/ukaea/paramak https://github.com/ukaea/paramak).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwaway1723 6y ago
What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Knowledge is built by iterating on previous knowledge - having freely available knowledge around on how to build turbines or reactors makes it far more feasible to develop better versions of those existing designs. It's not just about the money involved in construction, albeit that could be a factor too.
  - jka 6y ago
    Arguably safety can benefit, too. Open designs allow anyone to inspect both an initial design, and also the modifications that are made to that design over time.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Because not everything in all contexts costs "money". Plenty of people have built turbines (or even reactors!) by collecting parts they either come by, get gifted from others or build themselves. Believe it or not, some communities do help others without exchanging money, even though it's not very common. To be of the view that free knowledge is worthless because things cost money is a dangerous view that basically says you need to have money in order to take advantage of free knowledge.
  - throwaway1723 6y ago
    > by collecting parts they either come by - Those were not produced for free > get gifted from others - Others paid for those > build themselves - Out of free materials or without any need to buy food and pay bills? > things cost money is a dangerous view It's dangerous only to idealistic outlook where money is evil and not a mere heat carrier. Now, banksters' interest-driven monetary system based on debt is evil, but that's another topic.
tannhaeuser 6y ago
Yeah right, because that has worked so well in IT. Where people are enslaved into browsers on mass surveillance devices and "Clouds", made possible by F/OSS (Linux, KHTML). It all started by re-implementing POSIX; the moment F/OSS is starting to innovate (rarely enough), monopolization of knowledge sets in, followed by commercial and governmental extortion. My advice would be to return to open standards not open implementations, to keep options going forward for future generations.
kang 6y ago
PhotoVoltaics are not sustainable.

67 points by protontypes 6y ago

>For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent. The open distribution of sustainable technology, knowledge and data provides the basis for an ecological and economical global economy. This secures the access to vital resources such as stable climate, soil or water for everyone in the long term. [[citation needed]]

cheph 6y ago
Yeah, look I'm all for FLOSS, but I don't like this stating conjecture as fact nonsense that is the bread and butter of western elites and technocrats one bit. It poisons the well.
- xenocratus 6y ago
  Just out of curiosity, are there any studies on the demographics of FLOSS support? I'm quite curious - with no specific goal in mind - about where the most ardent supporters are, in what fields they work, at what age, and so on.
  - throwaway1723 6y ago
    Your assumption is correct!
- protontypes 6y ago
  The global scientific consensus shows that climate change is a real global problem. The many FLOSS projects on our list show that institutions around the world come to the same conclusion through a variety of open data sets and models. It is true that, as everywhere else, there are black sheep (i.e. Climategate). But these are the exception. We think that the discussion should include everyone interested in this development, we need an improved way to create "open facts". To keep the scientific discussion and discoveries as open and transparent as possible, we propose to built an "open fact pipeline". As seen in the slides related to this list (slide 10, https://protontypes.eu/protontypes_open_sustainable_technology.pdf https://protontypes.eu/protontypes_open_sustainable_technolo...). Proposed pipeline model: Open Models and Data -> Open Tools -> Open Execution and Server -> Open Results -> Open Discussion -> Open Science and Facts
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cheph 6y ago
    Maybe I missed it, but none of what you said actually supports this claim: > For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent.
protontypes 6y ago
This is the central statement of our organization. Thank you for pointing it out. I have now made our organization as the originator of this statement clear.
throwaway29389 6y ago
Really? Walled gardens and monopolization of knowledge are good now?
- konjin 6y ago
  From whom? Imagine how much better the world would be if we harvested your orgnans and gave them to a dozen people who would die without them. Yes it might be bad for you personally, like the author who starves, but think of the bigger picture.
  - jpetso 6y ago
    Now imagine a world where donors can voluntarily give one of two working kidneys to people who need them to survive, and you have a much closer analogy. Still not quite there, but at least not as unnecessarily alarmist.
    - konjin 6y ago
      Where's the world where open source devs get paid?
tannhaeuser 6y ago
F/OSS isn't so sustainable after all, as in can't sustain itself unless being dominated by a corp.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

sdesalas 6y ago

What about work being done on 4th Gen Nuclear? If anything is going to make a dent on climate change and provide a way forward for sustainable energy generation it would have to be scaling up the share of nuclear (to 25-50% of overall share) with new and safer reactor designs that move away from outdated cold war technology we are still using.

pydry 6y ago
it doesn't really make sense to scale up a form of power that's 2-4x the cost (more if you include research costs for newer designs) just because it can act as baseload. Over producing, demand shaping and storage will be cheaper. Nuclear is only financially viable because the government subsidizes it - usually to maintain weapons technology.
- RealityVoid 6y ago
  So what if it's 2-4x the cost if it's clean? I assertthe externalities of pollution are afar more than 2-4x. I also strongly doubt that it _is_ 2-⁴x as expensive.
  - hannob 6y ago
    it's 2-4x the cost compared to other almost carbon free options.
  - pydry 6y ago
    I meant 2-4x the cost of equally carbon neutral technology. Solar and wind are almost absurdly cheap. It barely makes economic sense to build anything else.
tdoering 6y ago
Nuclear energy is of course a controversial topic. The main reason for not appearing on the list is that there are practically no open projects in this field. ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) apparently relies on open source software, but we could not find any open documentation for this project. (https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3316 https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/3316) The Open100 project is similar. (https://www.open-100.com/ https://www.open-100.com/) We have found only one big project that is really open and active: Paramek (https://github.com/ukaea/paramak https://github.com/ukaea/paramak).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwaway1723 6y ago

What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).

zozbot234 6y ago
Knowledge is built by iterating on previous knowledge - having freely available knowledge around on how to build turbines or reactors makes it far more feasible to develop better versions of those existing designs. It's not just about the money involved in construction, albeit that could be a factor too.
- jka 6y ago
  Arguably safety can benefit, too. Open designs allow anyone to inspect both an initial design, and also the modifications that are made to that design over time.
capableweb 6y ago
Because not everything in all contexts costs "money". Plenty of people have built turbines (or even reactors!) by collecting parts they either come by, get gifted from others or build themselves. Believe it or not, some communities do help others without exchanging money, even though it's not very common. To be of the view that free knowledge is worthless because things cost money is a dangerous view that basically says you need to have money in order to take advantage of free knowledge.
- throwaway1723 6y ago
  > by collecting parts they either come by - Those were not produced for free > get gifted from others - Others paid for those > build themselves - Out of free materials or without any need to buy food and pay bills? > things cost money is a dangerous view It's dangerous only to idealistic outlook where money is evil and not a mere heat carrier. Now, banksters' interest-driven monetary system based on debt is evil, but that's another topic.

tannhaeuser 6y ago

Yeah right, because that has worked so well in IT. Where people are enslaved into browsers on mass surveillance devices and "Clouds", made possible by F/OSS (Linux, KHTML). It all started by re-implementing POSIX; the moment F/OSS is starting to innovate (rarely enough), monopolization of knowledge sets in, followed by commercial and governmental extortion. My advice would be to return to open standards not open implementations, to keep options going forward for future generations.

kang 6y ago

PhotoVoltaics are not sustainable.