4 ms·

How long until he figures out that DOGE also wastes energy?

by noxer 5y ago

paulpauper 5y ago
or that electric cars do not actually have zero carbon footprint while we're at it, don't rockets pollute too
- noxer 5y ago
  No one suggest they have. As long as they have less than an device that does the same task but uses gas then it reduces emissions. Rockets as well, they pollute but making them reusable pollutes less. Also depending on fuel type its perfectly possible to produce it form solar energy. But DOGE just burns energy it does nothing with it that could not be done without. Its significantly less then Buttcoin but it explodes with popularity as well. And every energy wasted is too much in the end.
  - totalZero 5y ago
    Making rockets reusable uses more fuel but requires more raw materials to be mined, refined, and fabricated into parts. It's a tradeoff. The chief argument for reuse is cost, not emissions.
    - noxer 5y ago
      "More fuel" is irrelevant its about pollution. You can never make parts without using a fix amount of resources and energy and if they are used they will end up as waste which is pollution too. Fuel however is just energy in a specific form. If the fuel is created with electric energy and it all comes form coal then it pollution is high but there is a clear path to reduce it down the line. There is no such path with rockets parts that have to be fabricated again and again and again. Cost is the reason why it is feasible. But it still reduces pollution. The additional fuel used to land the rocket causes way way less pollution than creating a new one for every launch. Embodied energy (gray energy) is often significantly underestimated. Just transporting the raw material from all around the world to make a final product uses immense amour of energy and very often its in the form of oil. Also down the line the additional fuel to land can be created with low pollution energy so pollution is reduced even further.
      - totalZero 5y ago
        Unless you quantify the marginal energy cost of carrying additional fuel payload and recovering a component, convert it to an environmental impact quantity, and compare it to the environmental impact of marginal construction, you shouldn't make claims that sound correct in your head but are not backed up by anything. There's a tradeoff and we don't know which one has greater negative externalities. Not all cost of marginal production is allocated to energy and materials.
        noxer 5y ago
        In this universe there is no way trashing the booster instead of land it would have less environmental impact. No we dont need a 20 page paper to make that claim. Basic understanding of economics and common sense is all it takes. Only small things or things that have very title environmental impact could ever challenge that. So unless you use boosters that grow on trees, is not even a debate.
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  Nobody thinks that EVs have a zero carbon footprint. But over the lifetime of the car, they have a lower footprint than ICE. Yes, they have a higher footprint than ICE to manufacture, but even if you get your power from coal, over the long term their carbon footprint is lower. And if your power comes from a renewable source, then the break-even point is less than two years. Engineering Explained did a good video doing the math behind the carbon footprints of ICE versus EV over the life of the car: https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM
- mondoveneziano 5y ago
  Electric cars and rockets only profit from becoming more efficient. Almost everything does, actually. Proof-of-work cryptocurrency does not. In fact, it counteracts efficiency, by design. If a new ASIC makes mining Bitcoins more efficient, difficulty is adjusted up.
- totalZero 5y ago
  Yes, rockets pollute, and different rockets pollute differently. This is my favorite primer on the topic: https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/ https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/
noxer 5y ago
Update: Elon Musk "Working with Doge devs to improve system transaction efficiency. Potentially promising." Clearly he didn't figure it out yet lol https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392974251011895300 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392974251011895300

How long until he figures out that DOGE also wastes energy?

by noxer 5y ago

How long until he figures out that DOGE also wastes energy?

paulpauper 5y ago

or that electric cars do not actually have zero carbon footprint while we're at it, don't rockets pollute too

noxer 5y ago
No one suggest they have. As long as they have less than an device that does the same task but uses gas then it reduces emissions. Rockets as well, they pollute but making them reusable pollutes less. Also depending on fuel type its perfectly possible to produce it form solar energy. But DOGE just burns energy it does nothing with it that could not be done without. Its significantly less then Buttcoin but it explodes with popularity as well. And every energy wasted is too much in the end.
- totalZero 5y ago
  Making rockets reusable uses more fuel but requires more raw materials to be mined, refined, and fabricated into parts. It's a tradeoff. The chief argument for reuse is cost, not emissions.
  - noxer 5y ago
    "More fuel" is irrelevant its about pollution. You can never make parts without using a fix amount of resources and energy and if they are used they will end up as waste which is pollution too. Fuel however is just energy in a specific form. If the fuel is created with electric energy and it all comes form coal then it pollution is high but there is a clear path to reduce it down the line. There is no such path with rockets parts that have to be fabricated again and again and again. Cost is the reason why it is feasible. But it still reduces pollution. The additional fuel used to land the rocket causes way way less pollution than creating a new one for every launch. Embodied energy (gray energy) is often significantly underestimated. Just transporting the raw material from all around the world to make a final product uses immense amour of energy and very often its in the form of oil. Also down the line the additional fuel to land can be created with low pollution energy so pollution is reduced even further.
    - totalZero 5y ago
      Unless you quantify the marginal energy cost of carrying additional fuel payload and recovering a component, convert it to an environmental impact quantity, and compare it to the environmental impact of marginal construction, you shouldn't make claims that sound correct in your head but are not backed up by anything. There's a tradeoff and we don't know which one has greater negative externalities. Not all cost of marginal production is allocated to energy and materials.
      - noxer 5y ago
        In this universe there is no way trashing the booster instead of land it would have less environmental impact. No we dont need a 20 page paper to make that claim. Basic understanding of economics and common sense is all it takes. Only small things or things that have very title environmental impact could ever challenge that. So unless you use boosters that grow on trees, is not even a debate.
Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
Nobody thinks that EVs have a zero carbon footprint. But over the lifetime of the car, they have a lower footprint than ICE. Yes, they have a higher footprint than ICE to manufacture, but even if you get your power from coal, over the long term their carbon footprint is lower. And if your power comes from a renewable source, then the break-even point is less than two years. Engineering Explained did a good video doing the math behind the carbon footprints of ICE versus EV over the life of the car: https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM
mondoveneziano 5y ago
Electric cars and rockets only profit from becoming more efficient. Almost everything does, actually. Proof-of-work cryptocurrency does not. In fact, it counteracts efficiency, by design. If a new ASIC makes mining Bitcoins more efficient, difficulty is adjusted up.
totalZero 5y ago
Yes, rockets pollute, and different rockets pollute differently. This is my favorite primer on the topic: https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/ https://everydayastronaut.com/rocket-pollution/

noxer 5y ago

Update: Elon Musk "Working with Doge devs to improve system transaction efficiency. Potentially promising." Clearly he didn't figure it out yet lol https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392974251011895300 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392974251011895300