Hubbert posted:

MightyBigMinus posted:

Real hurthling! posted:

guys im upgrading from 16 mpg city to 22 so i think we got this climate trouble on lock.

Real hurthling! posted:

guys im upgrading from 16 mpg city to 22 so i think we got this climate trouble on lock.

Real hurthling! posted:

guys im upgrading from 16 mpg city to 22 so i think we got this climate trouble on lock.

Skaffen-Amtiskaw posted:

For every MPG you don’t do, I’m going to do three.

AceClown posted:

Hubbert posted:

Dokapon Findom posted:

As someone who feels we have decades not centuries, reading the space flight thread is a loving trip

Misc posted:

i can't pay no doctor bill but wheelie's on the moon

Misc posted:

i can't pay no doctor bill but wheelie's on the moon

ikanreed posted:

Good news everyone, there's no coal or oil on Mars!


which reminds me of this

OIL PANIC posted:

once we become a spacefaring people, the proportion of ffs burned within our atmosphere will decrease, and we will be saved!
edit: even more saved than we already are, that is, given how immaculately the proportion of energy from non-ff sources has been increasing. and how splendidly energy and gdp growth are decoupling.
edit: and that's not even getting into the good word of second derivatives

RandomBlue posted:

... YET

SixteenShells posted:

i should actually read the thread instead of tilting at second hand takes, but how the gently caress are you going to get anything into orbit without fossil fuels. or is the idea that you can use renewables to generate the rocket fuel?

SixteenShells posted:

Like, sub-"back of the envelope" math here*, but I think you need something like 30 MJ/kg to put something into low earth orbit, and even then you need periodic boosts to keep it from burning up in the atmosphere. Where are you going to get the energy density for this, if not fossil fuels?

* i'm just eyeballing this table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_orbital_energy#Tangential_velocities_at_altitude and comparing the energies of an "at earth's surface" "orbit" with a low earth orbit. i'm a biologist who played a lot of kerbal, please be kind when you tear me to shreds. but do correct me, i'm legitimately curious

freezepops posted:

fossil fuels are not used directly in modern rockets. im sure someone is using kerosene or w/e for a first stage but for performance reasons most use a fuel that is fully synthetic (liquid oxygen/ liquid hydrogen, hydrazine or other fuel types specific to booster types or stages of flight). its probably the easiest application to power with renewable energy since any energy input likely could be replaced with electricity as the energy use is a rounding error compared to anything else we do.

SixteenShells posted:

ah okay. so we already have a high energy expenditure generating the fuel, but there's no reason that energy expenditure can't come from renewables?

hooman posted:

Guardian AU posted:

Planned gas developments on Western Australia’s Burrup Hub led by Woodside Energy could result in twice as much greenhouse gas being emitted as any other Australian fossil fuel development up for approval, according to an analysis by environment groups.

The analysis led by Greenpeace estimated the Burrup Hub expansion could lead to 6.1bn tonnes of CO2 across the decades ahead if fully developed – roughly 13 times what Australia emits annually. Most of the emissions would be released when the gas was sold and burned overseas. The scale of the development plans – including opening the proposed Scarborough and Browse gas fields and extending the life of Woodside Energy’s North West Shelf liquified natural gas (LNG) processing plant until 2070 – was the focus of a Monday meeting in Canberra between independent, Labor and Greens MPs and WA climate campaigners.

The roundtable discussion in federal parliament follows the WA government substantially increasing its rhetorical support for gas industry expansion. The premier, Roger Cook, told an energy transition summit earlier this month more WA gas could lead to emissions increasing in the state in the short-term but that would be good for the planet as it would lead to a “dramatic reduction” in global emissions by displacing coal overseas. The claim has not been backed by evidence.