(Thread IKs:
fart simpson)
|
Ardennes posted:Maglev is probably going to need an enclosure to tunnels even if it isn't pressured just for wind and stability issues. No? How high do you think it's levitating?
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
ikanreed posted:No? How high do you think it's levitating? It isn't going to be blown off the tracks, but if you are ramping up the speed you probably want to do it in a controlled space without wind resistance (also just not having random other possible issues).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 21:07
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:I can't imagine planes or commercial aviation will ever go away in a zero-carbon future. Most likely we'll just synthesize jet fuel from biofuels or w/e biofuels aren't a meaningful improvement
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:for clarity, that doesn't solve anything, as the emissions are the problem there. unless you wanna design a replacement for turbofan engines Well it gets into the whole ball out wax of bioenergy and if it is actually doing anything useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Well it gets into the whole ball out wax of bioenergy and if it is actually doing anything useful. It's not, hth
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:No? How high do you think it's levitating? They already have to do it on their regular HSR lines where there are high winds. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 22:09
|
|
|
Maybe we will see electric engine to replace jet engine one day. Supposedly electric airplane would have totally different engine design. You would put hundreds of small fans on the wings for maximum efficiency. Also if you want less pollution and higher efficiency, the speed of travel is probably going to be slower. I feel that it's not a big deal if most people can work remotely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Maybe we will see electric engine to replace jet engine one day. Supposedly electric airplane would have totally different engine design. You would put hundreds of small fans on the wings for maximum efficiency. what in tarnation
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 22:36
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:I can't imagine planes or commercial aviation will ever go away in a zero-carbon future. Most likely we'll just synthesize jet fuel from biofuels or w/e I wouldn't expect it to completely go away on a predictable timeline for a variety of reasons--it's fundamentally a dual-use technology, certain routes especially across the Pacific are at least on the same log scale between carbon from fuel per passenger in Y on a 777 and average overall carbon footprint per passenger over the length of a sea voyage, and while most of the things we use air freight for are wasteful need-my-treat-now there are going to be edge cases where there is actually a reason the item is say available only in Tokyo and must be in LA that night. I would expect it to be unrecognizable, given that the bulk of butts in seats are getting on 737s to follow an existing rail line on a Shinkansen-equivalent overall timetable because it's a lower upfront capital expense, the carbon is currently a costless externality, and it's easier to manage a standardized fleet. More turboprop or even traditional prop for certain short hauls in rough country, long hauls mostly as they exist now but with carbon impact included in the price (or, better yet, included in a per-person ration without paid dispensations), and midhaul essentially nonexistent except to maintain whatever dual-use capacity is desired. E: Electric has the huge paired issues that current and theoretically possible batteries don't hold as much energy per kg as liquid fuels, and that there's no practical way to jettison empty batteries and reduce the energy requirements for the rest of the flight while that carbon-rich exhaust is jettisoning used fuel. You might be able to replace the low end, though it would only hurt unless you were also sure to be charging off clean sources. The high, not so much. Mandoric has issued a correction as of 22:52 on Jan 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 22:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:They already have to do it on their regular HSR lines where there are high winds. haha cool
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 22:58
|
|
|
also regardless of the fuel, the contrails themselves are contributing to global warming. in the short term, the contrails have a worst impact on the climate than the co2 exhaust does. https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer quote:Though lasting for only a short time, these “contrails” have a daily impact on atmospheric temperatures that is greater than that from the accumulated carbon emissions from all aircraft since the Wright Brothers first took to the skies more than a century ago. even if the biofuels are actually carbon neutral (and that's a massive if) the contrails themselves may cause enough warming to make sustaining or growing the amount of air travel non-viable under a climate conscious economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
Mandoric posted:I wouldn't expect it to completely go away on a predictable timeline for a variety of reasons--it's fundamentally a dual-use technology, certain routes especially across the Pacific are at least on the same log scale between carbon from fuel per passenger in Y on a 777 and average overall carbon footprint per passenger over the length of a sea voyage, and while most of the things we use air freight for are wasteful need-my-treat-now there are going to be edge cases where there is actually a reason the item is say available only in Tokyo and must be in LA that night. North America will be absolutely unrecognizable in a modern sense, from both climate change but also a completely different societal model, before widespread trains in any way becomes realistic here. We will have mass balkanization and war and unimaginable situations before we ever build that in canada or USA IMO
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:also regardless of the fuel, the contrails themselves are contributing to global warming. in the short term, the contrails have a worst impact on the climate than the co2 exhaust does when I backpacked the grand canyon last year, deep in the desert in the middle of nowhere, there wasn't a cloud in the sky by evening the sky was full of clouds from all the contrails, like enough to mistake for real clouds
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:for clarity, that doesn't solve anything, as the emissions are the problem there. unless you wanna design a replacement for turbofan engines Where does the carbon in the biofuels come from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 00:42
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:Where does the carbon in the biofuels come from? from fossil fuels
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:also regardless of the fuel, the contrails themselves are contributing to global warming. in the short term, the contrails have a worst impact on the climate than the co2 exhaust does. Albedos nuts
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Bald Stalin posted:lol China built an actual low vacuum hyperloop before musk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25ZuKkbHdqM
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 02:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1746532953411170680
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 02:31
|
|
|
AJ's missing the last panel 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
Killer7 style ban planes and drive rocket cars across intercontinental bridges
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 02:43
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:from fossil fuels I was under the impression that biofuels referred to fuels made from photosynthetic organisms. Ultimately making the biofuels requires more energy than is gained from burning them so its not an energy source, but the process itself is carbon neutral because the organisms use atmospheric CO2; and energy could be supplied from solar, wind, hydro, etc. unwantedplatypus has issued a correction as of 03:23 on Jan 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 03:21
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I was under the impression that biofuels referred to fuels made from photosynthetic organisms. Ultimately making the biofuels requires more energy than is gained from burning them so its not an energy source, but the process itself is carbon neutral because the organisms use atmospheric CO2; and energy could be supplied from solar, wind, hydro, etc. This only makes sense if the photosynthetic organisms also harvest and process and transport themselves
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 03:34
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I was under the impression that biofuels referred to fuels made from photosynthetic organisms. Ultimately making the biofuels requires more energy than is gained from burning them so its not an energy source, but the process itself is carbon neutral because the organisms use atmospheric CO2; and energy could be supplied from solar, wind, hydro, etc. this also assumes the biofuels themselves are produced in ways that don’t create more potent greenhouse gases. For example, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than co2. So you can actually make things worse by turning atmospheric co2 into methane if even just the tiniest amount of methane leaks out (and industry standard leakage rates are far higher than tiny.) That’s not even getting into the climate change impacts of the land use change required for large scale biofuel plans. Turning more Amazon forest into switchgrass isn’t good for the climate either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:This only makes sense if the photosynthetic organisms also harvest and process and transport themselves Hurr durr did you know that the energy required to mine the materials used in solar panels and wind turbines comes from fossil fuels!?!? Trabisnikof posted:this also assumes the biofuels themselves are produced in ways that don’t create more potent greenhouse gases. For example, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than co2. I suspect you don't need to turn the amazon rainforest into switchgrass plantations if you're using biofuels for niche applications which require energy-dense low-weight fuel (such as air travel) rather than attempting to replace all of our fossil fuel consumption. unwantedplatypus has issued a correction as of 03:59 on Jan 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 03:57
|
|
|
Still in the bargaining phase, I get it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 03:59
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Still in the bargaining phase, I get it The adults in the room know that labor aristocrat ennui is extremely profound and there's no harm in continuing to sup from the blood-stained goblet of global super-profits until the Climate Apocalypse ends history. A lot of people think they're pragmatic and worldly, when really they're just self-servingly cynical. unwantedplatypus has issued a correction as of 04:14 on Jan 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
It's especially weird to do doomer sealioning in this thread of all places. Why would you at all be invested in the development of China, B&R, etc. when you think the entire global economic system is going to collapse in 5 years after multi-crop harvest failures or w/e
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 04:22
|
|
|
It’s called shooting weird chemical poo poo in the air to reflect the ☀️. No sunbeams reaching 🌍 = no global warming! It’s just that easy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 04:45
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:It's especially weird to do doomer sealioning in this thread of all places. Why would you at all be invested in the development of China, B&R, etc. when you think the entire global economic system is going to collapse in 5 years after multi-crop harvest failures or w/e I think China is going to save us from climate change (and we will never forgive them for it) I also think killing air travel is eventually going to be a part of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 04:51
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I suspect you don't need to turn the amazon rainforest into switchgrass plantations if you're using biofuels for niche applications which require energy-dense low-weight fuel (such as air travel) rather than attempting to replace all of our fossil fuel consumption. The land use change or induced land use change (if we take productive food land for biofuels then we need to make more crop land) still can mean that biofuels end up as a net bad thing for the climate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:00
|
|
|
thankfully biofuels don’t need fertilizer, either
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
one of the nicest thing about trains is the much larger legroom. How come no one mentions that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:13
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:thankfully industrial food production doesn’t need fertilizer, either
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The land use change or induced land use change (if we take productive food land for biofuels then we need to make more crop land) still can mean that biofuels end up as a net bad thing for the climate. As part of a comprehensive land use change cutting out many of the gross inefficiencies of land usage, you could probably still reserve some amount of land for biofuel production while drastically reducing total land use compared to present levels. Something something "none of this matters because it is socio-politically impossible." "Hey I noticed you're talking about decarbonization. Did you know that its impossible and useless and you're an idiot for talking about it?" "Did you know nuclear is bad because of the large time to pay-off and high construction costs?" "Did you know solar and wind will only be used to add to the energy capacity of our fundamentally fossil-fuel based civilization?" "Did you know biofuels require croplands to growth?" "Did you know new coal power plants are still being opened?" "Did you know that soil degradation is a civilizational threat independent of CO2 levels?" "Did you know about the clathrate gun?" "Did you know about the Thwaites ice sheet?" "Did you know about the aerosol effect?" "Did you know that geo-engineering is easy to do and could easily make things worse"? "Did you know about aquifer depletion?" Genuinely one of the most tedious and numerous types of guy in C-SPAM. I do not even care, at this point, if it is objectively correct. It can be safely assumed that any discussion of a future where everyone doesn't die is pre-supposing a future in which global civilization persists, even if that particular scenario is unlikely. The alternative warrants no discussion and will be something we simply suffer through until we don't. unwantedplatypus has issued a correction as of 05:34 on Jan 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:21
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:a future where everyone doesn't die Good news about mortality!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:37
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:As part of a comprehensive land use change cutting out many of the gross inefficiencies of land usage, you could probably still reserve some amount of land for biofuel production while drastically reducing total land use compared to present levels. Im simply pointing out that biofuels are not the straightforward and guaranteed carbon neutral solution that their advocates claim they are. The consequence of that reality is that technologies that do not require biofuels to be feasible, like China’s HSR system, are better climate aware infrastructure investments than technologies that do require biofuels, like aviation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Im simply pointing out that biofuels are not the straightforward and guaranteed carbon neutral solution that their advocates claim they are. That's fair, and you've made some good points
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:44
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:musk's hyperloop is parking your individual vehicle on a car elevator into and out of street level traffic as demonstrated with a pilot here, not a filthy train Elon has a really big butt lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 05:59
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:what they really need is some sort of flexible ticket that you buy in advance and can just walk on any train between sz and hk, standing room only or no reserved seat at least, whenever you show up that day to the station if they get rid of the border more hk people will be going into shenzhen for cheap goods and health care and hollowing out hk's economy even further lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 06:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:if they get rid of the border more hk people will be going into shenzhen for cheap goods and health care and hollowing out hk's economy even further lol sams club in shenzhen has a shuttle bus to take people from hong kong to shenzhen to buy cheap stuff, lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2024 06:22
|
|