Thread

1. fakwandi_priv · 1790601680 · focus · HN ↗

   I’m a bit saddened this thread has so little activity, 55 comments as of posting, here even though there are half a million people watching the spacex stream. Just watching the launch, the amount of technology and people involved is incredible.

   Prompting claude 5.5 has more appeal it seems.

   1. varjag · 1790601961 · focus · HN ↗

      For all very real SpaceX achievements there's certain Musk fatigue if you haven't noticed. He's done enormous job to sour people on the idea of becoming multiplanetary species.

      1. qzw · 1790603309 · focus · HN ↗

         I was all for going multi-planet until I realized the second part of the plan was “and fuck the planet we’re on now.” I’m afraid the second part is coming along much faster than the first.

         1. indoordin0saur · 1790603807 · focus · HN ↗

            How is that the second part of the plan?

            1. pavlov · 1790604226 · focus · HN ↗

               Their plan calls for inaction towards issues that are making this planet increasingly worse for humans.

               1. baggy_trough · 1790604512 · focus · HN ↗

                  Like pioneering the first excellent electric car?
               2. pigpop · 1790604520 · focus · HN ↗

                  Elon is the world's biggest stan (who is actually doing things rather than just talking about it) for solar power and electrification of transport, how is that a call for inaction?

                  1. indoordin0saur · 1790606906 · focus · HN ↗

                     A funny thing I like to do with people like this is point out the fact that Elon has perhaps done more than any person in history to get humans off of fossil fuels. And then when they sputter in disagreement I always like to ask who they'd propose instead. If they have any answer at all they inevitably give the name of a person who just demands that someone else do something (e.g. an activist or media figure), never actually someone who has put their time, effort and money into building a better system.

                     1. sensanaty · 1790610654 · focus · HN ↗

                        Sure, I guess if we ignore the fact that he's spent and continues to spend unfathomable amounts of money on politicians who are very publicly pro fossil fuels and climate change denialists, and does shit like opening data centers powered by the largest gas generators on the planet.
                     2. nancyminusone · 1790611610 · focus · HN ↗

                        Tesla makes batteries and battery powered cars, which are indifferent of energy source. They do make some solar panels, but are a minor player not even in the top 10 by shipped capacity worldwide. But chineese companies like LONGi Solar and JinkoSolar aren't "one guy" (even though they ship 50x what Tesla does), so I guess they don't count.
                     3. qzw · 1790612150 · focus · HN ↗

                        Ok I’ll play, but you’re not going to like the answer: Xi Jinping. Putting aside all the valid criticisms of China under Xi, the scale at which they’ve embraced electric car and solar energy puts anything Tesla has done to shame. We’re talking more solar and wind capacity added in one year than the U.S. has in total. And China has done more to lower the cost of solar panels and batteries than anyone else while dominating global production. None of it would be possible without an intentional national policy.

                        1. indoordin0saur · 1790617310 · focus · HN ↗

                           Nice job. Best answer I've heard. I think Musk is still a better candidate for fighting global warming, as China has also done an enormous amount of polluting, burning of coal, etc. But I'm not really sure how it nets out. It could totally be that Xi's the most culpable for polluting the planet, rather than saving the planet.

                           1. maxglute · 1790619394 · focus · HN ↗

                              Rough napkin math: current annual PRC solar output lifetime production displaces / prevents 40billion barrels of oil. ~100mbd per day... i.e. basically GLOBAL oil usage. So every year, PRC solar printing enough solar to replace 1 year of oil use over their life time (assume 20% capacity factor / substitution method / equivalent work efficiency). For reference global LNG is 70mbd, global coal 100mbd equivalent. PRC industry scaled at producing 80 billion barrel equivalent of solar (not enough battery scale to absorb right now)... i.e if there's enough demand / ability to adopt PRC can basically produce enough renewable to eventually displace 2/3 global fossil use if demand steady (it's not). If one attributes solar industrial policy to Xi, like this stupid game to play but if were to play it, Xi's renewable industrial policy alone will prevent doubling of global fossil use at current adoption pace. This just solar, excludes other renewables and eventual nuclear export. The net is extremely easy, global energy demand increases as billions develop, and PRC is almost solely responsible for making sure high % of generation is renewable and not fossil, on global scale.

                              TLDR in this hypothetical, it's just Xi on an 100 story podium, no one else is even in the building. Unless we eventually credit someone for portable fusion, i.e. 60% of global oil used in transport that can't be displaced at utility scale energy solutions, and one credits Xi for MIC2025/PRCEV/battery then no one will ever even dethrone Xi.

                              1. indoordin0saur · 1790630501 · focus · HN ↗

                                 > TLDR in this hypothetical, it's just Xi on an 100 story podium, no one else is even in the building. Unless we eventually credit someone for portable fusion, i.e. 60% of global oil used in transport that can't be displaced at utility scale energy solutions, and one credits Xi for MIC2025/PRCEV/battery then no one will ever even dethrone Xi.

                                 Ehhhh, I'd say he's not in some league of his own. Xi is also industrializing with fossil fuels and China became the planet's largest producer of CO2 under his leadership and he's been outsourcing dirty industries abroad, particularly to Africa. I'd give more credit to people lower-down the totem pole in China, who are leading the charge for clean energy such as Wang Chuanfu, but he's very explicitly following in Elon's footsteps.

                                 It's also a little wild to discount pollution already produced in previously unseen amounts while crediting to them hypothetical future reductions. Last year China had it's highest CO2 emission ever, and even with solar it's possible that their CO2 output will increase.

                                 1. maxglute · 1790643061 · focus · HN ↗

                                    He literally sets / signs off on industrial policy, others follow, This not malaria/polio/smallpox where one can attribute credit and proliferation to X team, and Y policy. PRC aggregate renewable spans 100s of sectors and programs etc, only sensible for credit to flow up to the big man. If one wants to split hairs, can also credit Hu who did indigenous innovation and renewable act, but execution and magnitude increase in industrial capacity expansion realized under Xi. Like literally no one else has stamped and enable industrial policy across sectors to displace current/future emission on order of magnitude of PRC renewable. World power demand is going to increase magnitude via simple 50% percent of world developing... MIC2025 essentially single handedly shifting future curve towards renewable from fossil. Teslas will never displace more emissions than whole of PRC renewable/ev etc. Elon simply is not in the running for global scale renewable adoption and emission displacement. No one is.

                                    > possible that their CO2 output will increase.

                                    Immaterial if CO2 increases, only useful geopolitical metric is historic per capita emission relative to development level and PRC is low for country blasting through capex heavy capital accumulation phase, i.e. PRC setting standard for low relative per capita emission development. Xi 2012-2026 did ~30% global emissions, ~10-15% global historic for ~20% of population. As long as PRC stays under 20% global historic and maintains above 50th percentile development (use whatever proxy indicator, per capital income PPP etc), they are under emitting / developing efficiently relative to energy use. AKA PRC developing more for less unit of emission. The alternative is not developing which frankly stupid argument/position. For reference US/Europe ~45% historic emission for 10% of global pop. On balance PRC currently grossly under emitting vs historic developmental baseline.

               3. Dig1t · 1790605596 · focus · HN ↗

                  Assuming you are talking about climate change: isn’t Tesla doing more than anyone to electrify everything and help fix the problem?

                  The plan definitely does not call for inaction towards other issues.

                  1. qzw · 1790611198 · focus · HN ↗

                     I believed this at one point as well, but that’s not happening anymore. Tesla became what it is while leaning on generous electric car rebates that drastically reduced prices of their cars (especially when leasing), not to mention the millions in carbon credits that other car makers paid to it that was basically another subsidy. Then once Tesla achieved economies of scale and paid off the early fixed costs, he no longer supported subsidies for electric vehicles. That’s pretty classic pull-up-the-ladder-behind-you behavior. The net effect is a drop in overall electric car growth and the scaling back of electric car development by many of Tesla’s competitors.

                     1. Dig1t · 1790642515 · focus · HN ↗

                        His competitors already have economies of scale, they are incumbent carmakers that build tens of millions of cars every year.

                        Volkswagen has a market cap of 40B, why do they need to government subsidies to build a new car?

                        If you truly care about wide-scale EV adoption above all else, why not advocate for opening up western markets to Chinese EVs? The availability of a 10k EV would do far more for adoption than giving taxpayer money to billion dollar megacorps.

            2. qzw · 1790608805 · focus · HN ↗

               Spending 100s of millions to help elect people who believe that climate change is not real, and who enact policies to delay and roll back what little the U.S. has done to reduce emissions.
            3. imtringued · 1790677546 · focus · HN ↗

               Elon Musk's idea to colonize Mars isn't to build the most efficient in-space architecture. It's to brute force his way with one way trips to Mars using a massive amount of reusable Starships to repeatedly refuel another Starship that is poorly adapted for inter-planetary travel.

               The "rocket CO2 doesn't matter" argument is based on the fact that nobody has reusable rockets right now, so the fuel expenditure is bounded by the cost of the rocket. Elon Musk wants to switch that equation on its head. Meaning e.g. $100 million launch costs no longer means $10 million fuel costs and $90 million rocket costs, it now means 5x $10 million rocket costs and 5x $10 million fuel costs, i.e. 5x more fuel used with the same budget and that fuel is going to emit CO2.

               One Starship launch produces 3500 tons. Now repeat this to 1000 Earth to Mars launches. That includes at least 10 tanker launches per ship. Meaning at least 10000 launches per year. That equates to 35 million tons of CO2 for something that has no direct benefit to earth.

               If he scaled down his Mars colony ambitions to 10 Earth to Mars launches per year people might turn a blind eye to it.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.