you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 13 points 1 year ago (19 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    Glorious coal for scenic steam locomotives. It’s a win-win

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Still cleaner than even the cleanest electric car, just by physics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    In theory, you could make a carbon-neutral coal-burning steam locomotive. You would need to make synthetic coal out of atmospherically-captured CO2. But in theory it would be possible...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    You'd just be making batteries at that point

    And the making wouldn't be free

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And what's wrong with that? Who says the coal has to be a net source of power?

    Synthetic fuels are actually a pretty viable method of decarbonizing, especially for hard-to-decarbonize applications like aviation. Sure, you don't get net energy out of them, but who cares? Thanks to dirt cheap solar, our civilization has stupidly abundant access to energy. It's only portable energy or energy when we want it that costs a lot. But people have seriously proposed making even gasoline from atmospherically derived carbon. Sure, it's just a fancy battery. But the Joules/dollar you get from the grid is so much cheaper than what you get from gasoline that it may be worth it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Wouldn't be carbon neutral.

    /dollar is a fantasy bullshit metric. Joules portable per joule in, joules per weight, joules per area, chemical byproducts per joule, fancy gear and maintenance required. those are what actually matter in the real world. We cannot afford to keep fucking around with childish LARP shit like money.

    And the best tool we have for carbon capture is still just trees. No process is perfectly efficient, can't be, and all have collateral costs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Copilot’s deep think says it would take a 2K passenger train to be more environmentally friendly than 2K electric cars, given a coal-steam train and electric cars recharged by a coal fired power plant.

    But that’s irrelevant, electric cars lose the coolness factor against steam trains. Choo-choo electric drivers!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    copilot's deepthink says

    I cannot express the depth of disappointment i feel here.

    Suffice to say that this is not an answer, and if you think it is; you're going to get a lot of people hurt very badly someday. I sincerely hope you are never responsible for so much as brunch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Well I don’t know anyone who works in either designing mass transportation nor makes environmental impact analysis, so no one could give me an accurate guess, hence why I specified that I asked.

    I cannot express the depth of disappointment i feel here.

    I even let it ‘think’ some extra time, come on

    I sincerely hope you are never responsible for so much as brunch

    I’ll make it my goal to ensure I’m supervising every single brunch you’re going to for the rest of our lives

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    There are rough numbers to be foubd, math to be done. Not enough for real work, but enough for guessing a rough course, or knowing when it's close.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Too much work for shitposting after work, don’t you think?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Then dont. An llm answer is worse than some shit you just made up on the spot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    A baseless answer is a baseless answer regardless of origin though. I'd argue more thought went into getting the LLM to give me an estimate that it would've if I just typed "yeah 600 passengers on a coal train are probably better". But hey, do feel free to hate on LLMs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    baseless

    A human mind is not random. You would be relating it to something. If you have a mind.

    The llm does not.

    I would have looked up the capacity/fuel burn/output of ay least one engine in each category, then vehicle weight. Two minutes.

    Or just not said anything unless i had a joke.

    Slopping at me in the guise of fact, totally uninteresting deceptive misinformation with no entertainment value is fucking offensive. A person would be ashamed of themselves. I would like an apology.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment