Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
I hate Elon maybe even more than the next guy, but there are some major exaggerations here:
Starlink makes tons of maneuvers to avoid collisions: https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability
Starlink is at an orbit that they are quickly returning to Earth and burning up on re-entry: https://cybernews.com/news/starlink-lost-200-satellites/
Sadly, it seems both sides of any discussion have now mastered hyperbole, manipulating statistics, leaving out facts and stretching the truth to make their argument. You basically can't believe anything you read any longer.
I think 'mastered' might be a bit of... dear god.
Meanwhile in marketing class ...kids are mastering how to make profit with it.
Spoiler: It's 0.1 tonnes of CO2e per subscriber per year. This is not mentioned in the article.
This includes for example the emissions generated in the course of constructing the rockets that launch the satellites. So far it's unclear to me whether, when comparing to terrestrial telecom, they include e.g. the emissions produced when manufacturing the trucks that deploy the infrastructure.
This also means the amount of emissions per user will go down the more users they get. It’s not very fair to compare something new to something that’s been around for decades in something that is based solely on the amount of users they have. I hate starlink, but this report is trash.
Emissions are going to go down when starship is made as well.
Starship uses a methane + oxygen fuel which burns cleaner, and can be produced with just water and CO2 making it carbon neutral.
I don't think every flight will be neutral immediately, or what % will be consistently once its scaled up, but it'll be better.
But 1 carbon neutral flight sending up hundreds of satellites will bring it down quickly. They could even save the carbon neutral flights for themselves for PR purposes.
You can’t produce methane from CO2 for free. It requires extremely high pressures and then you have to add in as much as energy as you would get out of burning the methane to make methane from scratch.
SpaceX’s launch facility, where they’d likely try this stupid process, is in Texas. Texas gets most of its electricity from burning fossil fuels. So unless spaceX makes a private nuclear reactor on site to power the methane manufacturing plant, they’ll be burning fossil fuels to make electricity so they can turn C02 back into a fossil fuel. That’s not carbon neutral
They'll probably build a solar farm.
But don't get me started on how there no such thing as carbon neutral because it took carbon to build the solar panels, or wind mills, and the person operating the facility had to eat vegetables which required someone to ship them, which required a EV which required power that came from solar but those solar panels which were made from panels produced via solar panels required someone else to clean them which produced co2 making their meals too!
The launch facility they have in Boca Chica is surrounded by wildlife preserves, where are they going to put a solar farm big enough for a usable methane plant?
To put it in perspective, a square meter of solar panel puts out about 200 watts.
At atmospheric pressure, a cubic meter of methane gas contains about 40 million joules of energy.
40 million/200 = 200,000 square meters of solar panels needed to produce a cubic meter of methane.
And that’s assuming the process is 100% efficient. It’s also not counting the energy needed for the pumps to pressurize plant, or the methods they would use to extract or move the carbon dioxide, or cool down the methane.
That 40million joule figure is for gaseous methane, starship needs liquid methane to run, so the methane would need to be cooled with industrial refrigeration to turn it into fuel, which adds even more energy to the equation.
For the amount of fuel Starship needs, the Sabatier process is not feasible if you’re doing it with solar panels and planning on launching more than once a year or so. Not unless they want to pave over a small city with solar panels.
Putting energy back into CO2 to get fuel is not really economically feasible. It’s a useful process for mars for example, because you can drop off the plant and have it trickle fuel into a launch vehicle while you build the base and wait for the crew to arrive.
Additionally, existing users are mostly in urban centers with very efficient infrastructure, starlink gives high bandwidth internet everywhere.
I'd like to see the CO2e cost of giving a user in the middle of Idaho or Montana a 100Mbps connection.
Thank you, I was wondering how high the emissions could possibly be for Internet access from the customer's perspective. I figured simply owning a car probably smashed even "30x as much" as other ISPs
They almost certainly do not. Embodied energy is conveniently ignored 99% of the time because a) awareness of how much carbon goes into everything could result in consumers consuming less — couldn't possibly do the almighty economy dirty like that — and b) it's extremely difficult to calculate with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
It's like giving billionaires access to do reckless shit that can literally impact humanity's future may be problematic.
Wow
But come on, think about all the jobs it created!
A handjob is still a job, officer!
I'd like you all to consider that places where you'd use starlink are also significantly more than 30x farther away from civilization than the average land-based internet user.
Out in middle of nowhere Ohio, the only options are satellite and I'll be damned if I'm doing to give Dish or Hughes net more money for worse speeds. Starlink is it until they actually run fiber out here.
So I don't really like the idea of defending anything related to Musk, but it's kind of poor form to compare emissions between Starlink and land-based internet imo. Although they are the same product, they are targeted at completely different users, from what I understand.
Starlink should always be a more expensive and slower technology just because of communication distance, so it shouldnt really be able to compete with land-based solutions (except where telecom is reeeeeally fucking people on price). Starlink is really meant more for edge-cases where telecorps refuse to build infrastructure.
Not only this, but StarLink is a new and rapidly growing service so the number of subscribers is still on a steep upward trend. Comparing carbon/subscriber is going to be inaccurate right now due to the low number of starlink subscribers compared to a more established utility with a stable number of users. StarLink also has more new infrastructure needed than an established utility.
Use cases and costs aside, we should still be open to discussing the pros and cons of these business ventures on the planet. Musk isn't going to pay up to clean up any mess caused by this, it would be taxes and price hikes around the world in the name of going green and reducing climate impact that get paid by plebs like us.
Fact is, satellite internet from low earth orbit is the best solution in some parts of the world, and the ones to blame are literally the exact ISPs it's competing with by providing service to the underserved. It's a necessary option in providing the constant connectivity out society expects and relies upon (whether or not intermittent outages should be acceptable is a different discussion)
I would love to see some legislation requiring satellite ISPs to share infrastructure so we don't have 3 incompatible competing services with duplicated but not necessarily redundant infrastructure. That would be a far more useful goal to push for
Okay then how come the internet isn't wired up globally. 2023 and there are still places without
As with everything it is because of money.
From a business point of view why should I spend $1,000 per quarter mile to install a fibre cable that will make maybe $120/month in revenue so my profit per service is maybe $30-$40/m
This is a vastly oversimplified as there are multiplexing technologies like GPON to lower the cost per mile but then there are support costs for faults, backhaul and internet exchange point costs I have to pay.
We did it with electricity and telephone service about 100-200 years ago depending on where you look. We can do it again with a technology that literally can share cables with telephone and electricity
Seems like we can't go a week between inaccurate posts complaining about Starlink getting traction
I'm actually surprised internet takes 3% the amount of energy it takes to get to space just to run some internet wires. I'd have thought it would be much much lower than that.
But also, starlink completes with geostationary satellite and home cellular connection more than internet over wires. Or even people who didn't have an option before.
It also says per subscriber of which I assume there are significantly more regular internet users than Starlink
It looks like the study they linked only addresses the CO2 produced by the satellites, and not the land based providers.
Another interesting thing is that OneWeb and Kuiper (competing satellite internet services) are estimated to have significantly more per-user emissions than Starlink (40-200% more emissions!) (keep in mind that Starlink is predicted to have the most users) while also being estimated to provide a worse service and be more expensive per user. (all taken from the charts on page 6)
They also mention that Starship will likely lower carbon emissions of later Starlink launches significantly.
I'm not quite sure how the much larger Starlink V2 design factors in to all of this, or if they even took it into account.
You know, I would think a progressive community would want to expand internet access to all (which is what Starlink does), so I’m kinda surprised there’s resistance every time it’s brought up.
In order to do what Starlink does, it would take laying millions of miles of cable or hundreds of thousands of cell towers. People need Internet options with better than a couple of Mb of bandwidth, and without draconian usage caps of a few tens of gigabytes. Without space-based systems, it's economically unfeasible to service large areas with few customers. What do you think the carbon footprint of laying cable to a few remote islands is? Who is going to pay for that boondoggle? Starlink makes it economically possible.
You're saying we have to fuck up the Earth one way or another so we might as well use rockets to do it?
"We" have no say in it, the guys with private islands who want to "work from home" while forcing their employees into useless offices, are going to fuck up the Earth... so this way they do it a tiny bit less.
They just don't care. If they could earn a trillion knowing that the gain would destroy the planet in 10 years, they would. They're out of control, and the states on their knees to beg their money.
