undefined | Better HN

0 pointsschiffern4y ago0 comments

>If anyone had any doubt about whether Elon really had the environment in mind when he founded Tesla, I think now you've got your answer.

This sort of "tribal purity" logic is silly: "if you've ever done anything negative, it means you never intended to do anything positive."

This is nothing but the environmentalism equivalent of the old "you're either with us or against us, we're at war!" fallacy.

Rockets have always used fossil fuels. This is not news. The fact that SpaceX is vertically integrating changes nothing about that. On the contrary it likely reduces leaks (which is a good thing) by shortening the processing chain.

0 comments

antattack4y ago

SpaceX will pay hefty taxes if carbon tax is implemented, yet Musk is still strong proponent of carbon tax.

Denvercoder94y ago

Relative to revenue, carbon tax won't be that significant for SpaceX.

There aren't any exact numbers yet, but Starship will burn about 5000 metric tons of propellant in a single launch. Assuming a stoichiometric ratio of CH4 to O2, that'll emit about 2600 metric tons of CO2 (the rest is water). According to the ICAO emissions calculator, a roundtrip by plane between LA and London emits about 0.9 metric tons of CO2 per passenger. Thus, a Starship launch generates the same emissions as 2900 passengers making that trip.

At the $400 price I get for that trip on Google Flights, those 2900 passengers generate about $1.2 million in revenue for the airline. A single Starship launch will generate $100 million in revenue for SpaceX.

tenpies4y ago

> Relative to revenue, carbon tax won't be that significant for SpaceX.

Are there any public statements on SpaceX's financials? The rumor from their last round is that it's a classic Elon money-burning enterprise - and profitability is always one quarter away. Revenue is of course pointless, since it's quite easy to have revenue when you're not profitable.

brabel4y ago

> This sort of "tribal purity" logic is silly...

If Greta Thunberg flew on a commercial airplane somewhere far away, she'd be accused of being a hyprocate, so she uses a sailboat to cross a freaking ocean when she wants to.

This may be tribalism purity from the part of conservatives, but that's always going to be the reaction from the "opposite" side in this kind of situations because that's the obvious human response. This is not silly logic, this is how humans behave and if you refuse to believe your eyes when you see this again and again, you're the one being silly.

LargoLasskhyfv4y ago

Yah, meanwhile the support team for her, operating the sailboat and whatnot else flew on commercial planes, to be there at the destination, having it to ferry around, and so on. Whiler her message may be right, her PA is a shitshow.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse