Transit agencies are repeatedly lured by hydrogen buses despite their significant drawbacks compared to battery-electric buses. Hydrogen buses are far more expensive to operate, requiring costly hydrogen production and fueling infrastructure, while battery-electric buses leverage existing electrical grids. Hydrogen technology also suffers from lower efficiency, meaning more energy is wasted in producing and delivering hydrogen compared to simply charging batteries. While proponents tout hydrogen's faster refueling time, battery technology advancements are closing that gap, and improved route planning can minimize the impact of charging times. Ultimately, the article argues that the continued investment in hydrogen buses is driven by lobbying and a misguided belief in hydrogen's potential, rather than a sound economic or environmental assessment.
In December 2008, a dike holding back a massive coal ash pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston Fossil Plant failed, releasing over a billion gallons of toxic sludge. This deluge inundated the surrounding community, burying homes and covering hundreds of acres in a thick layer of coal ash, a byproduct of burning coal containing heavy metals and radioactive materials. The disaster displaced residents, damaged property, and spurred long-term health concerns among residents and cleanup workers, many of whom later developed cancers and other illnesses linked to coal ash exposure. The TVA ultimately took responsibility for the spill caused by faulty dike construction and was tasked with a lengthy and expensive cleanup process.
HN commenters largely focus on the lack of accountability for TVA and the devastating long-term health consequences for the Kingston community. Several highlight the inadequacy of the $43 million settlement considering the scale of the disaster and the ongoing health problems. Some commenters point to the inherent risks of coal ash storage and the need for better regulations and enforcement. The disparity between the treatment of the Kingston community and the likely response had a similar disaster occurred in a wealthier area is also discussed, with many feeling that environmental injustice played a significant role. A few comments provide further context around coal ash disposal and regulatory failures, referencing other similar incidents. Some also express frustration with the slow pace of cleanup and the perceived lack of media attention the disaster received.
The Guardian article argues that the dominant "fossils" of the Anthropocene era will not be large skeletons, but rather "technofossils"—persistent manufactured materials like plastics, concrete, and even fast fashion. These materials, produced and discarded in massive quantities, will be preserved in the geological record for millions of years, offering future civilizations a stark depiction of human activity. The article highlights the proliferation of plastic bags, cheap clothing fibers, and even altered chicken bones (due to industrial farming practices) as prime examples of this enduring legacy, painting a picture of a planet profoundly reshaped by human consumption.
HN commenters largely discussed the permanence of human-created materials like plastics and concrete, with some expressing cynicism about humanity's legacy being trash. Several debated the geological significance of these "technofossils," arguing whether they truly constitute a new epoch marker. Some highlighted the potential for future civilizations to misunderstand these remnants, drawing parallels to how we interpret past civilizations. Others pointed out the irony of cheap, mass-produced items becoming long-lasting markers of our era, while more intentionally preserved artifacts might decay. A few comments also touched on the potential for future recycling or repurposing of these materials, questioning the "eternal" aspect of the headline.
Residents of the Turks and Caicos Islands are grappling with the aftermath of SpaceX's Starship explosion in April 2023. The powerful blast, which occurred during the rocket's first integrated flight test, scattered debris across the uninhabited island that served as the launch site. Months later, islanders are still finding chunks of concrete and metal, raising concerns about environmental damage and potential health risks. Clean-up efforts are slow and complex due to the remote location and the nature of the debris, leaving residents frustrated with the lack of progress and communication from SpaceX. The explosion's impact has underscored the potential downsides of commercial space launches and raised questions about adequate safety and mitigation measures.
Hacker News commenters discuss the environmental impact of the Starship explosion and the debris field it created in the Turks and Caicos. Several express concern over the lack of apparent cleanup efforts by SpaceX and the potential long-term effects on the fragile island ecosystem. Some question the adequacy of the environmental review process and the FAA's oversight. A few commenters point out the inherent risks of space exploration and the need for iterative development, while others criticize the "move fast and break things" mentality applied to such a sensitive environment. The discussion also touches on the potential for legal action by residents and the challenges of holding SpaceX accountable for the cleanup. A recurring theme is the contrast between the excitement surrounding space exploration and the less glamorous, but crucial, responsibility of mitigating its environmental consequences.
The Toyota Prius, launched in 1997, revolutionized the auto industry by popularizing hybrid technology. While not the first hybrid, its combination of fuel efficiency, practicality, and affordability brought the technology into the mainstream. This spurred other automakers to develop their own hybrid models, driving innovation and establishing hybrid powertrains as a viable alternative to traditional gasoline engines. The Prius's success also elevated Toyota's brand image, associating it with environmental consciousness and technological advancement, paving the way for broader acceptance of electrified vehicles.
Hacker News commenters generally agree that the Prius had a significant impact, but debate its nature. Some argue it normalized hybrids, paving the way for EVs, while others credit it with popularizing fuel efficiency as a desirable trait. A few contend its main contribution was demonstrating the viability of electronically controlled cars, enabling further innovation. Several commenters share personal anecdotes about Prius ownership, highlighting its reliability and practicality. Some critique its driving experience and aesthetics, while others discuss the social signaling aspect of owning one. The environmental impact is also debated, with some questioning the overall benefit of hybrids compared to other solutions. A recurring theme is Toyota's missed opportunity to capitalize on its early lead in the hybrid market and transition more aggressively to full EVs.
The post argues that individual use of ChatGPT and similar AI models has a negligible environmental impact compared to other everyday activities like driving or streaming video. While large language models require significant resources to train, the energy consumed during individual inference (i.e., asking it questions) is minimal. The author uses analogies to illustrate this point, comparing the training process to building a road and individual use to driving on it. Therefore, focusing on individual usage as a source of environmental concern is misplaced and distracts from larger, more impactful areas like the initial model training or even more general sources of energy consumption. The author encourages engagement with AI and emphasizes the potential benefits of its widespread adoption.
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the article's premise that individual AI use isn't a significant environmental concern compared to other factors like training or Bitcoin mining. Several highlight the hypocrisy of focusing on individual use while ignoring the larger impacts of data centers or military operations. Some point out the potential benefits of AI for optimization and problem-solving that could lead to environmental improvements. Others express skepticism, questioning the efficiency of current models and suggesting that future, more complex models could change the environmental cost equation. A few also discuss the potential for AI to exacerbate existing societal inequalities, regardless of its environmental footprint.
Enterprises adopting AI face significant, often underestimated, power and cooling challenges. Training and running large language models (LLMs) requires substantial energy consumption, impacting data center infrastructure. This surge in demand necessitates upgrades to power distribution, cooling systems, and even physical space, potentially catching unprepared organizations off guard and leading to costly retrofits or performance limitations. The article highlights the increasing power density of AI hardware and the strain it puts on existing facilities, emphasizing the need for careful planning and investment in infrastructure to support AI initiatives effectively.
HN commenters generally agree that the article's power consumption estimates for AI are realistic, and many express concern about the increasing energy demands of large language models (LLMs). Some point out the hidden costs of cooling, which often surpasses the power draw of the hardware itself. Several discuss the potential for optimization, including more efficient hardware and algorithms, as well as right-sizing models to specific tasks. Others note the irony of AI being used for energy efficiency while simultaneously driving up consumption, and some speculate about the long-term implications for sustainability and the electrical grid. A few commenters are skeptical, suggesting the article overstates the problem or that the market will adapt.
Summary of Comments ( 375 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43363293
Hacker News commenters largely agree with the article's premise that hydrogen buses are an inefficient and costly alternative to battery-electric buses. Several commenters point out the significantly lower lifecycle costs and superior efficiency of battery-electric technology, citing real-world examples and studies. Some discuss the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry as a driving force behind hydrogen adoption, framing it as a way to preserve existing gas infrastructure. A few offer counterpoints, suggesting niche applications where hydrogen might be viable, like very long routes or extreme climates, but these are generally met with skepticism, with other users arguing that even in these scenarios, battery-electric solutions are superior. The overall sentiment leans heavily towards battery-electric as the more practical and environmentally sound option for public transit.
The Hacker News post titled "Why do transit agencies keep falling for the hydrogen bus myth?" generated a moderate amount of discussion with varied viewpoints. Several commenters echoed the article's sentiment, expressing skepticism towards hydrogen buses and highlighting the inefficiency of producing hydrogen, particularly when compared to electric buses. They pointed out the energy losses involved in converting electricity to hydrogen and then back to electricity to power the bus, emphasizing the superior efficiency of directly using electricity to charge batteries. Some also raised concerns about the environmental impact of hydrogen production if it relies on fossil fuels.
A recurring theme in the comments was the influence of lobbying and vested interests in promoting hydrogen technology, potentially clouding the judgment of transit agencies. Commenters speculated that political pressure and the allure of "new" technology might be contributing factors to the adoption of hydrogen buses despite their drawbacks.
However, not all comments were against hydrogen buses. Some commenters acknowledged specific niche applications where hydrogen might be advantageous, such as long-distance routes or situations where fast refueling is critical. They suggested that hydrogen could potentially play a role in a diversified public transport system, complementing battery-electric buses rather than replacing them entirely. One commenter also brought up the potential for hydrogen to be produced through electrolysis using renewable energy sources, addressing the environmental concerns raised by others. However, this sparked a counter-argument about the greater efficiency of directly using that renewable energy for charging batteries.
Another point raised was the lack of existing hydrogen infrastructure, which poses a significant hurdle to widespread adoption. Building out hydrogen refueling stations requires substantial investment, and the absence of such infrastructure makes it more challenging for transit agencies to transition to hydrogen buses.
Overall, the comments section presented a mix of perspectives on the viability of hydrogen buses. While many commenters were critical of the technology, emphasizing its inefficiencies and questioning the motives behind its adoption, others offered more nuanced views, suggesting potential niche applications and highlighting the possibility of cleaner hydrogen production. The discussion revolved around efficiency, environmental impact, infrastructure challenges, and the potential influence of lobbying.