3 ms·

I feel like we keep hearing about technologies like this that are going to change the world but none of them ever actually get implemented... just me?

petre 3y ago
If it's just tech, it's always too expensive, it has to be bacteria or alage or some other bio stuff that multiplies by itself to be useful.
interroboink 3y ago
Not just you. Just sensationalist headlines (: See also the dramatic groundbreaking new battery technologies that have keep getting reported for the last 30+ years. [1] Not only is there a long lead time between proof-of-concept and scalable production even in the best case, but frequently these nascent technologies have serious drawbacks that aren't mentioned in the article. [1] "Revolutionary battery checklist": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025930 also: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ and https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623 https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623
0xcde4c3db 3y ago
As with just about everything else, it's a whole lot easier to build a proof-of-concept prototype than it is to solve the problem at scale. New technologies often have either inherent limitations that make it infeasible for them to scale up (e.g. use of fragile or hard-to-manufacture materials, square-cube issues, outsized cleaning/maintenance requirements) or would simply have a staggering cost at any scale that makes a practical difference.
hosh 3y ago
There are already stuff like this that has been deployed - John Todd’s Eco-Machines: https://youtu.be/SeQotnmhO5I https://youtu.be/SeQotnmhO5I These projects have not made it to the media, but they are there. We’re talking about EPA-funded works, and other sites around the world. The guy designing and deploying says it is simple enough that students can construct a small scale version.
feedsmgmt 3y ago
"business people" will pretty much only allocate resources to endeavors that are financially profitable for themselves and these same people quite often provide financial incentives to politicians who promise to advocate for policies that result in additional profitability for the business people regardless of the environmental or social consequences. Those elected politicians need to be replaced and the capacity for the "business people" to influence elected officials with financial contributions should be limited and involve mandatory transparency. No more unlimited dark money pools.
- konschubert 3y ago
  the above solution is silly expensive. Expensive doesn’t mean that somebody is greedy, it means that it takes a lot of effort from a lot of people - effort that could probably be spent more effectively.
  - loa_in_ 3y ago
    Equating expensive with valuable, while very much in line with rules coming from Economics 101, is very questionable in real life in my experience.
    - konschubert 3y ago
      If talking about costs bothers you, just think of it in terms of time efficiency. We have a limited number of humans and time available to clean up the planet. What's the most effective way to use them? This isn't.
justrealist 3y ago
I mean, this is like the moon landing — private companies can build the technology, but it's not going to get deployed at scale unless a government sponsors it, because there's not a clear path to profit. And like, is congress going to spend $10B deploying this at scale? That would be great, but they can't even pass a budget.

petre 3y ago

If it's just tech, it's always too expensive, it has to be bacteria or alage or some other bio stuff that multiplies by itself to be useful.

interroboink 3y ago

Not just you. Just sensationalist headlines (: See also the dramatic groundbreaking new battery technologies that have keep getting reported for the last 30+ years. [1] Not only is there a long lead time between proof-of-concept and scalable production even in the best case, but frequently these nascent technologies have serious drawbacks that aren't mentioned in the article. [1] "Revolutionary battery checklist": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025930 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28025930 also: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ and https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623 https://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623

0xcde4c3db 3y ago

As with just about everything else, it's a whole lot easier to build a proof-of-concept prototype than it is to solve the problem at scale. New technologies often have either inherent limitations that make it infeasible for them to scale up (e.g. use of fragile or hard-to-manufacture materials, square-cube issues, outsized cleaning/maintenance requirements) or would simply have a staggering cost at any scale that makes a practical difference.

hosh 3y ago

There are already stuff like this that has been deployed - John Todd’s Eco-Machines: https://youtu.be/SeQotnmhO5I https://youtu.be/SeQotnmhO5I These projects have not made it to the media, but they are there. We’re talking about EPA-funded works, and other sites around the world. The guy designing and deploying says it is simple enough that students can construct a small scale version.

feedsmgmt 3y ago

"business people" will pretty much only allocate resources to endeavors that are financially profitable for themselves and these same people quite often provide financial incentives to politicians who promise to advocate for policies that result in additional profitability for the business people regardless of the environmental or social consequences. Those elected politicians need to be replaced and the capacity for the "business people" to influence elected officials with financial contributions should be limited and involve mandatory transparency. No more unlimited dark money pools.

konschubert 3y ago
the above solution is silly expensive. Expensive doesn’t mean that somebody is greedy, it means that it takes a lot of effort from a lot of people - effort that could probably be spent more effectively.
- loa_in_ 3y ago
  Equating expensive with valuable, while very much in line with rules coming from Economics 101, is very questionable in real life in my experience.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    If talking about costs bothers you, just think of it in terms of time efficiency. We have a limited number of humans and time available to clean up the planet. What's the most effective way to use them? This isn't.

justrealist 3y ago

I mean, this is like the moon landing — private companies can build the technology, but it's not going to get deployed at scale unless a government sponsors it, because there's not a clear path to profit. And like, is congress going to spend $10B deploying this at scale? That would be great, but they can't even pass a budget.