4 ms·

We can either be infinitely scared and do nothing or we can actually make progress in a responsible manner and get a chance to fix climate.

by krasin 4y ago

akira2501 4y ago
This is not a responsible solution, and believing so doesn't belie some "infinite fright," nor does it discount the thousands of more reasonable solutions that could be applied here first. If you honestly thought "space based power beams" were a realistic solution, then why you would even propose a plane as opposed to a boat is entirely beyond me. This idea that we're just going to find some "plug in" solution to our current infrastructure that's suddenly net positive for the climate only invites these kinds of irresponsible flights of fancy. If you want an honest solution, then you're going to have to reconsider the mechanisms that cause you to fly cargo across the globe on jets in the first place. These systems were built for profit, and they continue to operate with profit as their primary motivation. If you want to manage the climate "responsibly" then you need to put it first, and when you do so, you realize that our current means of distributing products around the world is patently insane. Only by ignoring that problem or hoping that literal "power beams from outer space" will magically become available and prevent any restructuring of profit flows leads to this kind of nonsense thinking.
bastawhiz 4y ago
The answer is not to do nothing. The answer is to reject bad ideas that would turn cruise ships into potential floating craters and instead pursue ideas that are both tractable and won't treat people as collateral damage.
- krasin 4y ago
  > bad ideas that would turn cruise ships into potential floating craters Is the concern here is a sudden loss of power or autonomous flight? If a beam is lost, these electric cargo planes will have enough batteries for 20-30 minutes of flight until power is restored. In the worst case, they would have to make a safe emergency landing in the ocean without hitting ships. If the concern is about autonomous flight, then it's not really different from many other autonomous systems: they absolutely work, but have to be implemented responsibly and pass regulatory audit.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > will have enough batteries for 20-30 minutes of flight Where does this number come from, exactly? Also, why not circumvent these questions by using electrolysis to make zero-carbon fuel from sunlight, and just pump that the regular way? Or ships, which can be wind powered most of the time and backed up by PV-H2 and/or beamed power in the doldrums? We can probably also use lightweight PV coatings (or beamed power) on a blimp for air travel that won't crash when power fails. (But probably only for cargo; the Hindenburg meme will probably prevent passenger interest).
    - krasin 4y ago
      >> will have enough batteries for 20-30 minutes of flight >Where does this number come from, exactly? It's a ballpark. Electric planes are capable of having up to 1 hour ([1]), but I've taken a smaller number to allow for more cargo instead of batteries - there's not much difference between 20 minutes and an hour in terms of finding a safe landing. > Also, why not circumvent these questions by using electrolysis to make zero-carbon fuel from sunlight, and just pump that the regular way? We should try almost everything. A massively parallel approach to reducing CO2 emissions has a higher chance of success. > Or ships, which can be wind powered most of the time and backed up by PV-H2 and/or beamed power in the doldrums? Same - we should try all technically-sound options. Wind, green hydrogen, biofuel, ammonia, solar, nuclear, beamed power in the doldrums. Non-practical approaches will vanish, practical will find their niches. > We can probably also use lightweight PV coatings (or beamed power) on a blimp for air travel that won't crash when power fails. (But probably only for cargo; the Hindenburg meme will probably prevent passenger interest). Somebody should try that too. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Velis_Electro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Velis_Electro

We can either be infinitely scared and do nothing or we can actually make progress in a responsible manner and get a chance to fix climate.

by krasin 4y ago

We can either be infinitely scared and do nothing or we can actually make progress in a responsible manner and get a chance to fix climate.

akira2501 4y ago

This is not a responsible solution, and believing so doesn't belie some "infinite fright," nor does it discount the thousands of more reasonable solutions that could be applied here first. If you honestly thought "space based power beams" were a realistic solution, then why you would even propose a plane as opposed to a boat is entirely beyond me. This idea that we're just going to find some "plug in" solution to our current infrastructure that's suddenly net positive for the climate only invites these kinds of irresponsible flights of fancy. If you want an honest solution, then you're going to have to reconsider the mechanisms that cause you to fly cargo across the globe on jets in the first place. These systems were built for profit, and they continue to operate with profit as their primary motivation. If you want to manage the climate "responsibly" then you need to put it first, and when you do so, you realize that our current means of distributing products around the world is patently insane. Only by ignoring that problem or hoping that literal "power beams from outer space" will magically become available and prevent any restructuring of profit flows leads to this kind of nonsense thinking.

bastawhiz 4y ago

The answer is not to do nothing. The answer is to reject bad ideas that would turn cruise ships into potential floating craters and instead pursue ideas that are both tractable and won't treat people as collateral damage.

krasin 4y ago
> bad ideas that would turn cruise ships into potential floating craters Is the concern here is a sudden loss of power or autonomous flight? If a beam is lost, these electric cargo planes will have enough batteries for 20-30 minutes of flight until power is restored. In the worst case, they would have to make a safe emergency landing in the ocean without hitting ships. If the concern is about autonomous flight, then it's not really different from many other autonomous systems: they absolutely work, but have to be implemented responsibly and pass regulatory audit.
- ben_w 4y ago
  > will have enough batteries for 20-30 minutes of flight Where does this number come from, exactly? Also, why not circumvent these questions by using electrolysis to make zero-carbon fuel from sunlight, and just pump that the regular way? Or ships, which can be wind powered most of the time and backed up by PV-H2 and/or beamed power in the doldrums? We can probably also use lightweight PV coatings (or beamed power) on a blimp for air travel that won't crash when power fails. (But probably only for cargo; the Hindenburg meme will probably prevent passenger interest).
  - krasin 4y ago
    >> will have enough batteries for 20-30 minutes of flight >Where does this number come from, exactly? It's a ballpark. Electric planes are capable of having up to 1 hour ([1]), but I've taken a smaller number to allow for more cargo instead of batteries - there's not much difference between 20 minutes and an hour in terms of finding a safe landing. > Also, why not circumvent these questions by using electrolysis to make zero-carbon fuel from sunlight, and just pump that the regular way? We should try almost everything. A massively parallel approach to reducing CO2 emissions has a higher chance of success. > Or ships, which can be wind powered most of the time and backed up by PV-H2 and/or beamed power in the doldrums? Same - we should try all technically-sound options. Wind, green hydrogen, biofuel, ammonia, solar, nuclear, beamed power in the doldrums. Non-practical approaches will vanish, practical will find their niches. > We can probably also use lightweight PV coatings (or beamed power) on a blimp for air travel that won't crash when power fails. (But probably only for cargo; the Hindenburg meme will probably prevent passenger interest). Somebody should try that too. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Velis_Electro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Velis_Electro