Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Sustainable Technology

opensustain.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 34 posts

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#21

Post by [deleted] »

protontypes wrote: post #12
cheph wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, look I'm all for FLOSS, but I don't like this stating conjecture as fact nonsense that is the bread and butter of western elites and technocrats one bit. It poisons the well.

The global scientific consensus shows that climate change is a real global problem. The many FLOSS projects on our list show that institutions around the world come to the same conclusion through a variety of open data sets and models. It is true that, as everywhere else, there are black sheep (i.e. Climategate). But these are the exception. We think that the discussion should include everyone interested in this deve…

[deleted]

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#22

Post by RealityVoid »

pydry wrote: post #4
sdesalas wrote: post #3

What about work being done on 4th Gen Nuclear? If anything is going to make a dent on climate change and provide a way forward for sustainable energy generation it would have to be scaling up the share of nuclear (to 25-50% of overall share) with new and safer reactor designs that move away from outdated cold war technology we are still using.

it doesn't really make sense to scale up a form of power that's 2-4x the cost (more if you include research costs for newer designs) just because it can act as baseload. Over producing, demand shaping and storage will be cheaper. Nuclear is only financially viable because the government subsidizes it - usually to maintain weapons technology.

So what if it's 2-4x the cost if it's clean? I assertthe externalities of pollution are afar more than 2-4x. I also strongly doubt that it _is_ 2-⁴x as expensive.

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#23

Post by throwaway1723 »

throwaway29389 wrote: post #19
throwaway1723 wrote: post #11

What's the use in free knowledge how to build a turbine (or God forbid, a nuclear reactor) when all labor, materials, energy and machinery involved in its construction cost money? That's right, the only use is that investors can save a hefty bit on the knowledge part. That's nowhere near the external looks of ideals of FOSS (but pretty much in line with its internal gist).

> What's the use in free knowledge Wasn't this orange website supposed to be "Hackers" News?

True that, but did anyone count how many tools created by hackers for hackers had enabled the furious growth of monstrosities like Google, Amazon, Facebook etc, which I guess can't be more opposite to ideals of hackers?

And on the other hand, did those tools empower hackers themselves? Other than quick and dirty prototypes, did those result in any products to empower common people? Last open source GSM phone project I was subscribed to lingered for years, postponed release for lack of funding and finally, I guess, was abandoned. But at the same time I see shop shelves crammed with dirt-cheap locked-down surveillance contraptions from big known corporations who shamelessly use FOSS tools in their development.

Or is it just an inevitable vicious cycle of all opposition becoming exactly the entity it opposed?

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#25

Post by capableweb »

throwaway1723 wrote: post #17
capableweb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because not everything in all contexts costs "money". Plenty of people have built turbines (or even reactors!) by collecting parts they either come by, get gifted from others or build themselves. Believe it or not, some communities do help others without exchanging money, even though it's not very common. To be of the view that free knowledge is worthless because things cost money is a dangerous view that basically s…

> by collecting parts they either come by - Those were not produced for free > get gifted from others - Others paid for those > build themselves - Out of free materials or without any need to buy food and pay bills? > things cost money is a dangerous view It's dangerous only to idealistic outlook where money is evil and not a mere heat carrier. Now, banksters' interest-driven monetary system based on debt is evil, bu…

I'm not sure if you're purposefully not understanding my counter-argument, but I'm gonna assume you're arguing in good faith here.

Your original argument was that because "labor, materials, energy and machinery" cost money, there is no use of free knowledge.

My counter-argument is that the one with the knowledge is not necessarily the same person/community that provides the label, materials, energy and/or machinery.

So it's still useful to have free and open knowledge published and consumed, as you never know who can be helped by it, no matter if they have the funds to use it or not. Others might have the funds, and can help by providing material etc.

My argument was never that money is evil and shouldn't exist anywhere, not sure why you went there.

Hope this helps you understand what I meant with my previous comment.

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#26

Post by tannhaeuser »

konjin wrote: post #2

>For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent. The open distribution of sustainable technology, knowledge and data provides the basis for an ecological and economical global economy. This secures the access to vital resources such as stable climate, soil or water for everyone in the long term. [[citation needed]]

F/OSS isn't so sustainable after all, as in can't sustain itself unless being dominated by a corp.

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#27

Post by hannob »

sdesalas wrote: post #3

What about work being done on 4th Gen Nuclear? If anything is going to make a dent on climate change and provide a way forward for sustainable energy generation it would have to be scaling up the share of nuclear (to 25-50% of overall share) with new and safer reactor designs that move away from outdated cold war technology we are still using.

4th generation nuclear does not exist yet. Building a nuclear reactor just with existing tech can easily take a decade. Building a nuclear reactor that has never been built before with a completely new concept will take at least another decade to develop from a concept to a real working thing.

Even in the case that any of the concepts discussed as 4th generation nuclear will work at all (there's a whole number of previous "new nuclear" concepts that have been tried and never went anywhere), it won't matter in the time most crucial for climate mitigation.

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#28

Post by hannob »

RealityVoid wrote: post #22
pydry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it doesn't really make sense to scale up a form of power that's 2-4x the cost (more if you include research costs for newer designs) just because it can act as baseload. Over producing, demand shaping and storage will be cheaper. Nuclear is only financially viable because the government subsidizes it - usually to maintain weapons technology.

So what if it's 2-4x the cost if it's clean? I assertthe externalities of pollution are afar more than 2-4x. I also strongly doubt that it _is_ 2-⁴x as expensive.

it's 2-4x the cost compared to other almost carbon free options.

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#29

Post by pydry »

RealityVoid wrote: post #22
pydry wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it doesn't really make sense to scale up a form of power that's 2-4x the cost (more if you include research costs for newer designs) just because it can act as baseload. Over producing, demand shaping and storage will be cheaper. Nuclear is only financially viable because the government subsidizes it - usually to maintain weapons technology.

So what if it's 2-4x the cost if it's clean? I assertthe externalities of pollution are afar more than 2-4x. I also strongly doubt that it _is_ 2-⁴x as expensive.

I meant 2-4x the cost of equally carbon neutral technology.

Solar and wind are almost absurdly cheap. It barely makes economic sense to build anything else.

Re: Open Sustainable Technology

#30

Post by konjin »

throwaway29389 wrote: post #20
konjin wrote: post #2

>For technology to be truly sustainable, it must be globally available and independent. The open distribution of sustainable technology, knowledge and data provides the basis for an ecological and economical global economy. This secures the access to vital resources such as stable climate, soil or water for everyone in the long term. [[citation needed]]

Really? Walled gardens and monopolization of knowledge are good now?

From whom?

Imagine how much better the world would be if we harvested your orgnans and gave them to a dozen people who would die without them. Yes it might be bad for you personally, like the author who starves, but think of the bigger picture.

Post reply on HN