• 0 Posts
  • 21 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • That’s still worse than abandoning flying by and large.

    edit: I don’t intend to let “perfect be the enemy of good”. It’s more like we got used to a lot of things and sometimes don’t question them radically enough.

    Do you think humanity, as a whole, is going to abandon flying? I certainly don’t. So the best solution is to make changes to limit the behaviors and modify the behaviors to cause less harm. Again, this is just one component of a larger solution, but its a good one to address what air travel still needs to occur.

    A bit of greenwashing here and there just isn’t good enough, if we want to save what’s left of the climate we knew.

    We’re already beyond that. We’re not getting that back.



  • Sorry, I think casual air travel is one of those things that’s only possible with cheap energy provided by oil.

    We’re saying the same thing on this point with both our posts. You’re saying “use rail instead of flying because batteries can’t fly a plane”. I’m saying "if we remove petroleum, the cost of jet travel will be substantially higher and consumers will seek a cheaper alternative (which may end up being rail). "

    SAF is only economically approachable because nobody wants it because oil is cheaper. If we were in a situation without oil, SAF, biodiesel, etc., would immediately get smacked with a demmand curve making it unaffordable.

    Sure, but you’re going whole hog to the “conserve” approach, which I agree is a component, but may not be the full or best answer. My suggestion would drastically increase solar power far far beyond our current electricity needs to create liquid SAF fuels directly from electricity and basic CO2/water inputs (aka Power-to-liquids). Theres a plant in Washington state doing exactly this.

    It’s like how you can run your car on fry grease scavenged from fast food dumpsters, but everyone can’t.

    I see that as too short sighted. Take the longer view. Fry grease is a very easily available and low transformation source of energy. There are other sources of energy that are a level more harder to get, and a level of more transformation needed to be usable in our chosen application.

    With scarcity (artificial or natural) and scale we would see switches to these other forms of non-petroleum energy. I’m not saying its an overnight thing, but I don’t think you are either with your proposals.


  • What we need to replace is the 80% of our energy use that is currently ONLY serviceable with oil. For instance, batteries are too fucking heavy to run an airplane.

    We have the solution already. Its called SAF (sustainable aviation fuel). It is possible to fly 100% with zero petroleum jet fuel. Its been done a few times as demonstrations in passenger airliners. There are two problems, but both have solutions:

    1. Gaskets - Petroleum jet fuel has certain naturally occurring compounds which compliment currently used rubber seals. SAF doesn’t have these compounds, but not all rubber seals need them, just the most commonly used. Future planes are being built that don’t use the old seals but there’s a huge fleet of planes that still use the old seals in use. So this problem has a solution, and time will largely solve it as old airframes age out and are replaced by new ones.

    2. Expense - SAF is a good chunk more expensive that petroleum jet fuel. Thats it though. Its expensive. It will mean higher cost for operating an aircraft and that has economic consequences.


  • So one year of increase

    You’re moving the goalposts of this discussion. We’re talking about 2025-2026 activities. From the OP article:

    "According to the Energy Institute’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy, US coal consumption increased by 10% in 2025, compared to a 0.7% rise globally. "

    vs 9 years of decrease is still an overall decrease.

    …so that point is irrelevant to the current discussion.

    Also there’s a difference between China choosing to do something with their planned economy, vs. random wacky shit happening here in Freemarketstan

    In this context, no there isn’t a difference. A net increase in coal usage is the only measure. Under that measure both the USA and China have increased domestic coal consumption for energy production.

    Even if you want to try to play the “planned economy” card, I doubt in the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–2030), which was formally approved at the National People’s Congress in March 2026, did the concept of $100+Brent crude prices exist as a recorded target. China has been buying up cheap Urals oil from Russia’s sanctioned shadow fleet of tankers for a couple years now increasing their strategic reserves (far higher than even the USA). Even those Urals shipments have largely curtained as its now open season for Ukrainian drones knocking out shadow fleet tankers by literally the dozen.

    China is not sinning by increasing coal use any greater than the USA by just reacting to geopolitical market conditions and the need to continue to power its nation.







  • about how he would fix a nonexistent problem

    Nazi-Musk aside, Its not exactly a non-existent problem. Its just a very very small niche problem that doesn’t justify the tremendous resources poured into creating it. Its also an old problem that doesn’t exist much anymore.

    There was a time when solar panels were pretty ugly and expensive. Those two things would deter a certain number of people from installing panels. So the idea of cheap solar panels that matched the traditional look some buyers wanted did exist. Heavy emphasis on some buyers because it was a pretty small pool to begin with. What really made solar shingles largely irrelevant was the dramatic drop in cost of regular panels, the drastic increase in performance of regular panels, and the noticeably improved aesthetics of all-black regular panels. So the prior tiny market for solar shingles shrank even more, and the costs of Tesla solar shingles continued to rise without any performance improvements. It was a tiny market before and its a nearly non-existent market now. Solar shingles are bad business.

    Lastly, social attitudes changed and having solar panels on a roof switched largely from being seen as an eyesore to a point of pride for many. This last point isn’t totally solved yet. My own housing community doesn’t allow panels on the side of the house that faces the road…except in some circumstances (making the rule even more stupid).

    I’m looking forward to the day when I can slap some panels on the other side of the house for even greater solar generation! I’m still have no interest in solar shingles though.



  • I ask for their wifi password. I’m not going to pay for my data to help them do their job.

    They’d love nothing more than you using their wifi. The data they can collect about you, your spending habits, and how they can change you behavior to buy more.

    You don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s network giant Cisco Systems pitch to store owners how their gear can track you and how the store benefits from it.

    "With guest Wi-Fi access available right at their fingertips, they can easily look up reviews about each product. This data gathered from Wi-Fi analytics not only allows retailers to track customers’ interests and identify emerging trends, but also provides shoppers with validated decision-making processes, as they weigh options across multiple providers. "

    "Gaining insight into your customer’s identity: By utilizing Wi-Fi analytics, businesses can gain valuable insights into who their customers are. This data can be used to better understand who is using their Wi-Fi network, when they are using it the most and what actions they take while connected. It provides business owners an unprecedented glimpse into their customers’ true identity, as well as more concrete evidence of their buying behavior in order to segment them more effectively. "


  • If they’re using bluetooth and wifi, we better find and remove those components too.

    Removing the Bluetooth/wifi module maybe more difficult. For cost cutting reasons, these controllers are built into the logic boards now, but disconnecting the bluetooth/wifi antennas inside the TV is trivially easy. They are simple push-on mechanical connectors. No wire cutting needed. Gently grab the gold/silver metal part pull straight up from the board.

    I just googled “lcd TV logic board” and this was one of the first images I found. I put a red square around the antenna connectors.




  • I recently bought a new TV and did some research to find the “least worst” TV with regard to internet connectivity and reliance on its “smart OS” navigation to just use an external HDMI port. I can report pretty good news for the Sony Bravia line of Android TVs.

    • there was no requirement to connect it to the internet
    • during setup there is a choice for “basic” which adds only a few default apps (which are uninstallable/disablable by the user)
    • there is a setting called “Power on and remember last input port”. What this means is you last used HDMI1 port when you powered off the TV, when you power it back up again it automatically goes right back to that HDMI input port without any extra button presses or user interaction. In practice this means you see the Sony logo on the screen and just a fraction of a second the graphic circles of part of the AndroidTV interface before it switches to the HDMI1 input where we left off before powering off the tv prior.

    Bonus feature we like:

    • there is a setting you can enable/disable that if the TV is already powered on, when you power on a device on another HDMI port than the one you’re on, the TV will automatically switch to that HDMI input without prompting. So if we’re watching the AppleTV on HDMI1 and then want to watch a Blu-ray, simply powering on the Blu-ray player will also have the TV switch to that HDMI2 input.

    I wish there was no AndroidTV OS on it at all, but the only time I’ve ever seen it was the one time when we went through the initial setup. We haven’t seen or interacted with it since.


  • I think its likely possible to build a data center that a community would be okay with. It would mean making certain design choices:

    • Closed loop water cycle - This would mean that only small fraction of water that is normally used by DCs is consumed. This technology is fully mature. The reason most companies don’t use it is, it is more expensive to run the DC this way.
    • Large scale PV solar panel installation for the DC - While not a complete answer to power consumption question, it would provide a large offset during the hottest hours of the day when DC cooling is most needed mitigating the worst impacts to DC electricity consumption
    • Waste heat reuse - In many parts of the world heat centrally created in a city and distrusted through pipes to other places that need heat. DCs are exceedingly good and producing heat, and it is largely wasted. If a community would know that their own heating bills would come down by using waste head from the DC, that would be an incentive.
    • Sound mitigation - most of the sound comes from cooling fans. If waste heat reclamation is done properly or a water loop to a large body of water is available, then the noise could be significantly reduced or eliminated too.

    All of these things are possible and if a DC builder did these things on an existing site, then used that as a showcase for what a new DC would be, I think it would be much better received. They can do all of these things. They don’t because its cheaper not to.