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

World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

eso.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#121

Post by Galaxeblaffer »

epistasis wrote: post #108
jordanb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know in environmental activism hates hydrogen and sees it as green-washing the petrochemical industry.

There's two types of hydrogen: 1) ammonia for fertilizer production and perhaps other industrial decarbonization, and 2) fantasies of energy storage, fuel, etc. Environmentalists know of the necessity of ammonia, but push back hard on the second. Michael Liebreich's hydrogen ladder is fairly good at summarizing an honest assessment of where hydrogen will be useful: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hydrogen-ladder-versi…

you are right that hydrogen is a fantasy.. but wait.. what is this solar and wind plus storage you speak of that overdeliver, specifically what storage are you talking about? the wind industry has heavily been pushing hydrogen as this storage at least in Germany and Denmark and as far as i know there's absolutely zero success here despite maasny years of trying

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#122

Post by coldpepper »

kbolino wrote: post #99
jordanb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know in environmental activism hates hydrogen and sees it as green-washing the petrochemical industry.

They may feel that way, but that seems emotional rather than rational. The choices for small-scale energy sources are: batteries with all their dirty mining, biofuels taking away lots of arable land from food/textile/etc production, or fuel cells which can still involve petrochemicals (but don't have to). There are no perfect options, and strapping enough solar panels or wind turbines to a vehicle (car, bus, train, a…

Mining affects a limited local area. CO2 emissions affect the whole planet.

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#123

Post by zardo »

bobthepanda wrote: post #114
koverstreet wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're going to get a 4x energy density improvement from lithium sulfur batteries, just as soon as production ramps up.

Wikipedia lists the energy density of kerosene as 9.7k Wh/L, and lithium sulfur at 550 Wh/L, which is not great.

Hydrogen isn't so great either.

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#124

Post by kbolino »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #104
kbolino wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may feel that way, but that seems emotional rather than rational. The choices for small-scale energy sources are: batteries with all their dirty mining, biofuels taking away lots of arable land from food/textile/etc production, or fuel cells which can still involve petrochemicals (but don't have to). There are no perfect options, and strapping enough solar panels or wind turbines to a vehicle (car, bus, train, a…

> choices for small-scale energy sources are: batteries with all their dirty mining, biofuels taking away lots of arable land from food/textile/etc production, or fuel cells Storage also includes flywheels and pumped hydro. Hydrogen is mostly a farce.

The key adjective there is "small-scale". There are many more alternatives when size is not an issue. Flywheels are very useful but their energy density is too low to be the primary power source for a vehicle.

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#125

Post by undersuit »

MostlyStable wrote: post #116
fsh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that "land use" is a big issue in one of the least densely populated countries on earth. Surely one could find a place for an industrial site that is not within 5 km of the world's prime telescope site. Using the existing infrastructure probably makes it slightly cheaper though.

The omission of this information is partly why I'm suspicious of the article. A well written article would have included things such as the above information about what the project was and additionally why it was being proposed for the given site. Omitting any information on the other side of the equation, and talking only about the impacts it will have on the observatory sure sounds like activist propaganda to me.

Unless the article has been updated there is no omission.

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#126

Post by kbolino »

epistasis wrote: post #110
kbolino wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may feel that way, but that seems emotional rather than rational. The choices for small-scale energy sources are: batteries with all their dirty mining, biofuels taking away lots of arable land from food/textile/etc production, or fuel cells which can still involve petrochemicals (but don't have to). There are no perfect options, and strapping enough solar panels or wind turbines to a vehicle (car, bus, train, a…

What dirty mining for batteries? Please be specific. This story was always a PR drive that focused on the "dirtiness" of batteries but never compares it to the dirtiness of all the other parts of competing technologies. And talking about the "dirtiness" of batteries but not every other single part of our industry (steel for everything, all the nasty stuff for electrolyzers, etc.) is all part of prioritizing emotional…

Batteries require specific minerals that are largely unique to them. The amount of lithium, for example, needed for all other purposes combined is dwarfed by the amount used to make batteries. Of course all industry and mining is dirty, the question is of unique costs to each solution. You don't need to mine nearly as much lithium, even if you account for all the infrastructure and logistics, to make and distribute biofuel. But then you need to dedicate a lot of arable land, which will have other effects. The point is not to remove batteries from the discussion but to include all solutions.

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#127

Post by sobellian »

On a longer time horizon, we need to figure out how to conduct astronomy without holding large regions (countryside, LEO, etc.) as test articles to control. Constellations like Starlink have already blown through that roadblock and rather than backlash we now see various governments / firms following them. LEO will only become more crowded.

In a more extreme case we have planetary protection where entire celestial bodies like Mars should remain sterile to preserve the possibility of their further study. It is easy to advance that policy while those bodies remain remote, but if we obtain the capability to develop the inner solar system then, much like LEO, we will do it regardless of the difficulty it imposes on xenobiologists.

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#128

Post by losvedir »

hnmias wrote: post #96
WorkerBee28474 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The telescopes are 8,000 miles south of America. Why does American policy matter?

I know the crowd here (mostly from USA) hates this kind of comment, but as a SOUTH AMERICAN, can I point out the absurdity of this kind of sentence? Chile is a South American country, in the American continent, and is 8000 miles south of America somehow. I know the why's and the meaning intented, no need to explain. Wont stop pointing this out though, as it will always feel to me as a example of the general disregard…

> in the American continent

I think it's worth pointing out that "the American continent" is not how geography is taught in the US. There's seven continents, one of which is North America and one of which is South America.

So you're making a point which only makes sense in Spanish, in the context of your own education. There's no ambiguity in the US since the only thing "America" can refer to is the USA.

I'm curious how it's taught for you about Europe and Asia. We learn those as separate continents, too, even though it's one land mass. For that matter, Africa is as connected to Asia as South America is to North America, but I'm almost certain you consider Africa its own continent, right?

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#129

Post by kbolino »

Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #119
bobthepanda wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen/syngas right now is the only way forward for long distance sea or plane travel, since batteries are too heavy.

hydrogen definitely not the only way for long distance sea, nuclear would just make so much more sense. and for place travel it also such the same as batteries, first of all its an explosive gas and second we only get less than 20%. hydrogen is just not a good solution to anything other than being a byproduct in the natural gas industry.

Though it may never prove viable, hydrogen from electrolysis of water creates no emissions other than oxygen. While large ships may be able to use nuclear power directly, the risks of a tenfold increase in small floating nuclear reactors in civilian hands are not trivial. Hydrogen provides a way to keep power generation centralized, secure, and efficient while also distributing it where needed. But this assumes an extreme excess of power, something only possible with nuclear or large-scale renewables, which may never come to pass in sufficient quantities or without even bigger problems.

Re: World's darkest and clearest skies at risk from industrial megaproject

#130

Post by s1artibartfast »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #65
nichos wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of any Americans that advocate for shooting of school children.

They said it's low importance to a ton of people, not that those people want the opposite .

I don't think that's really supported. It's not number one above all else, but I don't think you can infer ranking from action.

I would argue that for most people their personal safety and that of their family is near the top of the list over 90% of the issues. Gun murder still exist, but that just goes to show that safety isn't the number one goal

Post reply on HN