3 ms·

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 ar

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

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