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!
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.
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
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
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…
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.
/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.
Glorious coal for scenic steam locomotives. It’s a win-win
Still cleaner than even the cleanest electric car, just by physics.
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!
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.
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 even let it ‘think’ some extra time, come on
I’ll make it my goal to ensure I’m supervising every single brunch you’re going to for the rest of our lives
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.
Too much work for shitposting after work, don’t you think?
Then dont. An llm answer is worse than some shit you just made up on the spot.
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
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…
Nope. Thermodynamics.
You’d just be making batteries at that point
And the making wouldn’t be free
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.
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.
It could be carbon neutral. It’s all about how you do it.