How in the hell was anti-intellectualism ever framed as cool?
Almost every movie or show I’ve watched since I was a kid featured a cool shoot from the hip maverick that didn’t have time to do that nerd shit like making ethical safe choices or pondering over the legitimacy of some grand conspiracy. They never needed too. They all live in a world where grand conspiracy’s existed.
30 years later my generation grew up and have a lot of media stored right next to actual memories. So egg heads are evil spineless nerds that work for evil faceless organization. The real hero’s are the guys that shoot first ask questions later.
Democracy. Everyone gets a vote, which leads people to think everyone’s opinion is equal.
Insecurity. People don’t like feeling shit about themselves. It’s easier to find excuses to hate someone you suspect is better than you, than accept the sad truth that you’re less than them. We’re all narcissists to a degree.
A lot of people fluctuate between narcissism and self-loathing.
Vanity. It’s the devil’s favourite sin.
No democracy here.
Democracy would mean that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton won their elections Just because more people voted for them.
Republicans at every level of government get fewer votes yet hold more seats than Democrats.
That’s not democracy, That’s something else.
Because generally the people with the money and power stand to lose by learning things they relied on for that money and power were bad.
It’s so much easier to sound completely sure of yourself and like you’re obviously right when you don’t know all the details. It’s profoundly easy to preach from mount stupid. Detail takes nuance, it comes with changing perspectives. It’s difficult and uncomfortable and requires humility. None of that is cool.
When you only have a hammer …
Ignorance is bliss. You can’t be depressed about what you know you won’t be able to or can’t achieve if you don’t know it. It’s even better when you don’t know that you don’t know it.
Paint chip?
Tale as old as time unfortunately and it’s never any less depressing considering the advances we’ve had.
How in the hell you tink airplanes will fly?
also biofuel lol
When planes and distances get larger, hydrogen starts to make more and more sense. But I guess we won’t get that far and planes will stay with biofuel and synfuel.
Hydrogen doesn’t have best track record with regard to aviation.
You mean the famous accident where the thing that was completely different from an airplane was full of hydrogen and burned down for reasons completely unrelated to that hydrogen?
And no matter which therory you champion (sabotage, lighting, or static build up), the nature of hydrogen is to blow the fuck up with urgemcy.
It is one of the most dangerous fuels.
Yeah, I was talking about this one. You should check it again, because the theory about it being caused by hydrogen is currently discredited.
If by “one of the most dangerous fuels” you mean just after the more volatile fossil fuel ones, that’s right. It comes just after natural gas and gasoline. It’s safer than those exactly because it tends to leak from everywhere.
Hydrogen is not particularly good for aviation: it either requires a lot of cooling, or a really high pressure, and/or leaks through solid containers, or has really poor energy density.
It’s a decent intermediary high energy density storage on the ground, where excess renevables can run through a fuel cell and produce hydrogen that can be stored at high pressures and low temperatures in bunker-like containers. Those don’t tend to fly very well though, at most swim somewhat decently to deliver the hydrogen wherever its needed.
Hydrogen can be used in rockets though, because of the great oxyhydrogen reaction’s efficiency, but you’ll notice they tend to leak like crazy… which, once more, is highly undesirable for aviation.
but you’ll notice they tend to leak like crazy
OGM. No, the thing you can see is condensation from the atmosphere. You can’t see an hydrogen leak in any reasonable environment.
Guess what? Leaking is a long term problem, and not very relevant if you refuel just before your trip. Its balance for airplanes is all dictated by the needs of a high-pressure storage against the unbeatable energy density. Up to now, hydrogen has always lost, and will probably keep losing for most airplanes, but commercial aviation is constantly pushing over factors that change the equilibrium towards it.
Condensation is one thing, hydrogen leaking straight through the metal is another.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
It isn’t a problem if you fill up a container with liquid hydrogen right before your trip, the trip lasts less than an hour, then you discard the container and let it burn up on reentry.
It is a problem though, if you intend to fill up the same container multiple times, keep hydrogen in it for hundreds of hours, and subject it to vibrations.
Another problem is that even in its liquid state, while the energy density to weight ratio is great, its energy density per volume is pitiful:
Meaning, a plane could carry the same energy in 3 times less weight of fuel, which is great, but still need 8 times larger deposits to do it, which would mess up the aerodynamics… and would still have a high chance of springing a leak.
It’s no coincidence that SpaceX is using liquid methane for its reusable rockets.
Electric airplanes are highly inefficient and not really good enough for commercial use.
Ah the moment.
That’s unlikely to change for long distance flights.
For short flights small electric planes are becoming viable already, and they will continue towards medium flights over time.
But theres no serious concepts for a battery that could compete for long flights.
That’s not to say that planes are doomed to be fossil dependent forever. But the likely solution will be a renewable high density fuel, possibly hydrogen or something easier to carry.
It’ll be less efficient than batteries on a energy in to work out basis, but once the cost of carrying the weight is considered, that will always swing way in the favour of high density fuels regardless of battery efficiency (for long distance).
Three words, nuclear powered aircraft. I see no way that could go wrong.
I prefer whale oil fueled aircraft
A little radiation never hurt anyone who maintains their Mach 2 velocity. Just never land and you’re fine.
Honestly I wanna see the crazy logistics of using rocket fule, since it’s just liquid oxygen and hydrogen with a water byproduct
Personally I doubt electric flight will ever be viable, but that’s because we should be using trains for short flights …. Says me from an urban area
Me who grew up rural near a small city says …… what about connections from small city to an airport where I can go places?
Me from when I worked at an investment management company and saw people with more money than they knew what to do with says …… I just need a quick hop down the Cape to my beach house (never mind that I was never one of those people)
There will always be people like that. There will also always be places where trains are impractical.
deleted by creator
Yeah if it didn’t cost me 3 or 4 times as much and take a week instead of 5 hours I would much rather take a train than fly home across the country
deleted by creator
Rail is for cargo not people in north America. More money moving cargo than humans.
Superconducting maglev trains can currently go about 70% the cruising speed of a 737, and could take you directly into a city center rather than an airport on the outskirts.
Also, price isn’t only a function of supply and demand. We also choose to subsidize fossil fuels with public funds, to make them artificially cheaper.
I understand why the trains suck. I would love to make them better.
The guy deleted his first tweet, but doubled down in his replies.
“people will always want to have a better society with less pollution so why even bother?”
What a knob
https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/fossil-fuels-run/
In figure 1 [4] we show the future energy reserves in billions of oil equivalent, Btoe, as a function of year. While we obliviously use up fossil fuels without taking stock of about what future reserves look like, we should take note of the endpoints shown here. These endpoints are dangerously close: Since our society is so dependent on fossil fuels, it therefore is extremely important for us to know when these fuels will run out according to [4]:
Oil will end by 2052 – 30 years time
Gas will end by 2060 – 40 years time
Coal will last till 2090 – 70 years time
However, according to BP [5], earth has 53 years of oil reserves left at current rate of consumption.
deleted by creator
A lot of that extended when we discovered fracking. The industry will keep finding new and more expensive ways to locate and abuse natural oil and gas. I don’t think the world will “run out”, but it will certainly be too expensive for the majority of society. But that’s effectively the same.
When I’m depressed, I think of it like …. We won’t run out, it just gets harder and more expensive to get, BUT we’ve already passed the point where we could recover in the event of civilization-wide catastrophe. We no longer have sufficient recoverable (as a less advanced society) energy sources to rebuild. If we fuck up now, that’s it for humanity
Not just humanity. It might fuck up any other species that could give this civilisation thing a go after we’re gone.
I think framing it as fossil fuels will run out in our lifetime, or the lifetime of the next generation stresses the urgency of the situation, and makes it more relatable than saying “fossil fuels will run out by year 20XX”. It feels harder to ignore that way.
I came to the comments looking for a citation on the supply claim so thanks for the link!
Another thing to think of is what it will look like as people grab at those last remaining drops. We already see it in loosening of restrictions to allow fracking, and moving villages and farms to scrape coal out of weaker and weaker deposits. The costs (not paid) of gathering this fuel will only increase and it’s already more than many are willing to tolerate, so the exact date of running out doesn’t matter at all.
There will always be oli, gas, and coal:
- first, the price will double
- then, the price will skyrocket
- finally, there will only be samples in a museum
Particularly oil, will stop getting used as fuel way before it “runs out”, it’s too important for producing plastics and other oil derivates.
I hate to spoil your fun, but these dates are always some what wanky. When my grandpa was in school, they told him that there ist still enough cpal for 40 years. When my dad whas in school tey told him that there is still enough coal for 50 Years. My elementry school teacher told me the same. If ypu look it up today, you will find that the coal reserves last for another 80 to 150 years. Resources dont run out. They get more expensive as the reserves dwindel leading to the developement of alternatives.
https://feddit.uk/comment/2564489 Someone did look it up yesterday. We have approximately 70 years of coal left.
I don’t think anyone finds climate change/running out of fossils fuels “fun” so you’re not ruining anything.
What will we use for lube?
Might I throw onto the table thorium power plants?
You can throw up all over the place for all the difference it makes. Sure, there are benefits that sound great, but the reality is they don’t exist. I think India has the biggest investment in trying to figure it out, but it’s not there yet and may never be
What do you mean, thorium is far more common than uranium and require less processing to be used. Plus, it isn’t always active like uranium, meaning it can be controlled a little better. It’s worth looking into.
That’s exactly what I mean. There are benefits that sound great. However there’s not a practical reactor based on that, yet.
In some ways it seems like fusion. Every few years you see a flurry of headlines of how great it would be, and we’re only ten years away, but it hasn’t happened
Removed by mod
Bonus photo of the protesters and the one who glued his feet to the concrete.
good more of this everywhere all the time
