I think we should hesitate a bit more with the general consensus that SpaceX’s rocket activity is good prima facia. It seems like what people mean is that they support the goals of space exploration ( I might as well). But really, have we evaluated:
- projected emissions for GTM on-asteroid mining
- projected emissions for human space colony development and maintenance until off planet energy is developed
- general projected emissions versus every alleged goal, weighted by probability and time
Doing a third party CB analysis seems essential and should be part of some sort of reg study, considering we all share the air, we all suffer climate change detriments, and 500k cars is a lot! Also SoaceX achieved excellent efficiency for satellite launches with Falcon 9 and Starship theoretically lowers emissions efficiency since payloads must be heavier to accommodate for additional positioning hardware (there are trade offs and SoaceX seems convinced that Starship is better long term for these use cases).
Also, Tesla cars' environmental story is actually not great at all - the things are hardly recyclable, for example.
Mostly Tesla serves to make electric cars *cool*, not just nerd toys. And that's excellent work. But we have to admit Tesla cars aren't there yet.
I've pointed out for a while that Musk's *real* work is making renewables cool. This really does help! But he also has to walk the walk. That's why I was horrified and disappointed by the bitcoin thing - it's very much a blow to Musk's green cred, which is the actually useful job he does.
100% agreed. EVe are a marginal improvement over ICE vehicles. Since so much of the raw materials come from china, we really don't know the scope of some of the other downstream impacts, for example
I think we should hesitate a bit more with the general consensus that SpaceX’s rocket activity is good prima facia. It seems like what people mean is that they support the goals of space exploration ( I might as well). But really, have we evaluated:
- projected emissions for GTM on-asteroid mining
- projected emissions for human space colony development and maintenance until off planet energy is developed
- general projected emissions versus every alleged goal, weighted by probability and time
Doing a third party CB analysis seems essential and should be part of some sort of reg study, considering we all share the air, we all suffer climate change detriments, and 500k cars is a lot! Also SoaceX achieved excellent efficiency for satellite launches with Falcon 9 and Starship theoretically lowers emissions efficiency since payloads must be heavier to accommodate for additional positioning hardware (there are trade offs and SoaceX seems convinced that Starship is better long term for these use cases).
Right, there's a nuanced way to look at carbon. This is more a way to point out how lazy arguments can often be counteracted.
I don't like x versus y carbon points as the deciding factor for sustainability, but that exactly a huge part of the Elon mythos
Also, Tesla cars' environmental story is actually not great at all - the things are hardly recyclable, for example.
Mostly Tesla serves to make electric cars *cool*, not just nerd toys. And that's excellent work. But we have to admit Tesla cars aren't there yet.
I've pointed out for a while that Musk's *real* work is making renewables cool. This really does help! But he also has to walk the walk. That's why I was horrified and disappointed by the bitcoin thing - it's very much a blow to Musk's green cred, which is the actually useful job he does.
100% agreed. EVe are a marginal improvement over ICE vehicles. Since so much of the raw materials come from china, we really don't know the scope of some of the other downstream impacts, for example
yeah. Hydrocarbon fuels are *amazing* - they do their job extremely well. Just that annoying "cook the planet" side effect.
I recommend (as I frequently do) Frances Coppola's essay: the limiting factor is now metals. https://www.coppolacomment.com/2021/03/from-carbon-to-metals-renewable-energy.html