[HN Gopher] Request for Startups: Climate Tech
___________________________________________________________________
Request for Startups: Climate Tech
Author : jeremylevy
Score : 164 points
Date : 2022-12-15 17:07 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ycombinator.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ycombinator.com)
| carapace wrote:
| Probably the biggest environmental win would be to make
| arcologies: ecologically integrated cities.
|
| > Arcology, a portmanteau of "architecture" and "ecology",[2] is
| a field of creating architectural design principles for very
| densely populated and ecologically low-impact human habitats.
|
| > The term was coined in 1969 by architect Paolo Soleri, who
| believed that a completed arcology would provide space for a
| variety of residential, commercial, and agricultural facilities
| while minimizing individual human environmental impact. These
| structures have been largely hypothetical, as no arcology, even
| one envisioned by Soleri himself, has yet been built.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology
|
| You would include the "Living Machines" designed-ecosystem
| technology of John Todd, et. al. to process waste and produce
| food and (some) medicines on site.
|
| https://www.toddecological.com/
|
| I dunno if you could make a startup out of it though.
| paxys wrote:
| Funny that after so many years of funding and encouraging crypto
| mining the VC industry now decides to go "green".
| ebiester wrote:
| With 800 billion dollars of funding from the government, there
| are going to be a lot of opportunities to follow the cash.
| kokanee wrote:
| Yeah, this is not VC "going green" for ethical reasons, this
| is VC investing in the next tech wave, which luckily is
| climate tech.
| NationalPark wrote:
| Those generative AI companies aren't exactly lean on energy
| usage either. It's about capturing the IRA money, which to
| their credit they are very up front about. Maybe something good
| will come out of it, after all, that's the point of the
| government spending! If they save the world purely out of self
| interest then we still get the saved world...
| paxys wrote:
| And what about when they take the government money and start
| doing innovative work, then once the funding dries up they
| realize that bitcoin mining is more profitable after all and
| promptly switch back to that. That's the problem with putting
| public good in the hands of private entities who have their
| next quarterly report to worry about and not much else.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| Curious, anyone working on automation in the mining space? I'm
| interested in jamming out with people about doing work in the
| industry. Or using airships in places like africa to transport
| minerals from mines to regional hubs (e.g. to avoid the huge
| delays on roadways currently happening between DRC and Zambia).
| manv1 wrote:
| Really, the big win is going to be "efficient air conditioning
| for poor countries" and "using materials other than concrete to
| build."
|
| Everyone loves AC. The more money you have the more you use it.
|
| And everyone in poor countries uses concrete to build.
|
| The bad thing is that these two things combine: the concrete box
| that is your building heats up like a brick oven, making AC work
| more. Doh!
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Air conditioners are already pretty efficient, so you're not
| going to get huge wins there.
|
| But solar-powered air conditioning could be a huge win. You can
| avoid the DC-AC-DC conversion losses, and avoid any impact on
| the grid. Most people without air conditioning would be quite
| happy with air conditioning that only works while the sun is
| shining.
| nawitus wrote:
| You can add a bit of insulation inside the concrete to make the
| house require less cooling than (any?) wooden house.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| It's a little disappointing not to see investments in
| regenerative agriculture. Granted, most of the work here isn't in
| software but in actually...farming...but still, the more energy
| put in that space, the more we'll see it be used as a standard
| for how we get our food.
| tator22 wrote:
| There are lots of things involved in the regen ag sector they
| should be looking at.
| gumby wrote:
| We plan to remove 4 Gt of atmospheric methane but the YC terms
| are too high for us. We're just funding it the old fashioned way.
| cjcenizal wrote:
| This sounds amazing! Could you share more info about your
| startup?
| gumby wrote:
| You can read more at www.bluedotchange.com
|
| 4 Gt is roughly all the anthropogenic CH4, responsible for
| about a third (or possibly a half) of temperature rise. After
| that we will continue at a lower level in order to keep
| curating the level and as a precaution against methane
| bursts.
|
| 4 Gt of CH4 is considered roughly equivalent to 120 Gt of CO2
| karol wrote:
| Twitter: explaining through power of free speech why climate
| change is a fraud.
| JulianRaphael wrote:
| Anyone wants to kick around ideas? Particularly interested in use
| cases for technology to improve regenerative agriculture /
| permaculture operations and water management in the global South
| (esp. India). You can find my E-mail address in my profile.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Make liquid O2 or Methane 5% cheaper and/or 15% cleaner and you
| can sell it to SpaceX all day long.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Here are some of my unsolicited and harebrained climate startup
| ideas. I'm poor and I can't afford to pursue any of these but I
| believe a carbon-neutral future will require these things:
|
| * Cheap EV chargers for people who don't own houses. Young people
| are the most likely to be open to EVs, but they're also the least
| likely to own a house. Charging is a major barrier to entry.
| Create something so cheap and ubiquitous that charging is not a
| concern. For example chargers built into lamp posts.
|
| * Figure out UHVDC to enable clean energy surpluses to be sold
| internationally. Reliable UHVDC networks will allow clean energy
| projects to service more geographic area, making them more
| competitive. Eventually, storage might not even be necessary,
| since dark/non-windy regions can always pull from regions with
| wind or sun. And when fusion power comes online in a few decades,
| huge energy surpluses will be very profitable.
|
| * Passive carbon capture via nuclear barges. We've had nuclear
| reactors in the water for decades, let's put them to use
| capturing carbon.
|
| * Floatovoltaics. Land isn't always cheap. Put solar panels in
| other places. There are other positive side effects as well, such
| as reducing algae blooms and reducing evaporation.
| tdaltonc wrote:
| For passive carbon capture, I don't understand what you're
| proposing. Let's pretend: Joe Biden gives you a nuclear
| aircraft carrier and a team of nuclear engineers. Now what?
| quelsolaar wrote:
| Lately i've been thinking that right now may be a great time to
| start an oil company. Cost of solar is going down so capturing
| c02 and turning it into fuel is looking like a viable option.
| People would pay a premiun for carbon neutral fuel. Most climate
| companies, focused on carbon capture, tried to make the most
| efficient carbon capture possible, but what if one focused on
| scalability and reducing manufacturing costs instead? A device
| that loses 90%+ of the energy when converting sun to fuel, would
| be viable if the cost of the machine would just be low enough,
| and scaled up enough. Such a device would in theory have a near 0
| cost of operation once installed, so with a long enough life span
| it would be profitable.
| tdaltonc wrote:
| Electro-fuels currently cost about $15 per gallon - In case
| anyone else was curious.
|
| https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/fuels-us-euro...
| quelsolaar wrote:
| Thanks for the link! $15 is a reasonable price where a
| company hyper focused on lowering the cost of manufacturing
| of C02 extraction machines, could become very competative
| withing a reasonable timeframe.
| tdaltonc wrote:
| It kind of floored me when I first heard it. Tripling the
| cost of jet fuel would be bad, but not that bad. And that
| number is likely to fall.
| kokanee wrote:
| https://www.twelve.co is doing this (with fuels as well as
| other carbon-derived chemicals). Trouble is, this is carbon
| recycling, not carbon sequestering. It's better than the status
| quo, but I'm more excited about ideas that either sequester
| GHGs permanently or replace industrial GHG-generating processes
| permanently.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| There's no fundamental difference between burning a synthetic
| fuel or burning a fossel fuel and sequestering the resulting
| carbon. Both are zero-carbon.
|
| Yes, sequestration can go negative-carbon, but that doesn't
| help anybody who has a difficult to replace fuel burning
| process.
| pcl wrote:
| Storing liquids (or solids) from at STP is far simpler than
| storing it in gaseous form. If we can cheaply extract CO2 or
| methane from the atmosphere and make liquid from it, we could
| sequester it in all sorts of trivial ways.
| kokanee wrote:
| Sure, but that's not what Twelve is doing or what the "I
| should start an oil company" comment suggested. They're
| talking about extracting CO2 to make fuel, and then burning
| it again in the same petroleum-based economy.
| psadri wrote:
| The first step is to reduce emissions, then stop them all
| together and finally sequester them to return to pre-climate-
| change level. I'd welcome all solutions along that spectrum.
| aliqot wrote:
| I think you're on to something, it makes me curious what the
| energy expenditure of one of these operations is in a
| conventional deployment, then what it would be over time with
| solar being the producer of energy.
| c54 wrote:
| This is the play that Terraform Industries is engaging in as
| well. Cost for synthesizing a unit of methane from atmospheric
| CO2 and water using solar power is set to drop lower than the
| cost of drilling it out of the ground.
|
| https://terraformindustries.com/
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| > lower than the cost of drilling it out of the ground.
|
| Shipping is a huge component of the price of natural gas. So
| it'll be a long time before they're cheaper than the price of
| natural gas in Alberta or Siberia, but they'll be able to
| beat the price in Los Angeles a lot sooner.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| According to their December newsletter, they project that
| point will occur in 2027 without subsidies and 2024 with the
| subsidies provided by the Inflation Reduction Act.
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Some thoughts:
|
| 1. We know for a fact that mangroves can mitigate tsunami damage.
| I've been looking into this and a lot of tree-planting programs
| really suck and are basically failures. Additionally mangroves
| are _tropical_ plants and -- so far -- I am failing to find an
| alternative for colder climates.
|
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051028141252.h...
|
| 2. We certainly need energy solutions and I'm happy to see people
| work on that, but we could use more companies working on _passive
| solar_ solutions as well. Most passive solar solutions are best
| implemented from the get go (from breaking ground on a new
| building), but some can be added after the fact. There is likely
| lots of low-hanging fruit in that second category.
|
| 3. Middle-eastern countries and their architectural traditions
| have many practices that help mitigate heat levels inside
| buildings and even at street level. These seem to be largely
| unknown outside such countries and we are missing a huge
| opportunity to export or adapt such traditions to other places to
| try to adapt to hotter temps.
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| Kelp is an alternative for the north. Unfortunately it's been
| disappearing because of warming oceans.
|
| https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/...
| carabiner wrote:
| I'm looking for work in this space. 4 years of experience as a DS
| at a 1m customer electric utility, extensive experience with
| meter usage data, ML, data pipelines. Traditional background as
| mechanical engineer so I know physics and stuff.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > Problems & Ideas: > Home pre-wiring
|
| Ductwork for cables?
|
| The problem unsolved in practice is post-wiring. A neat device
| would be a robotic remote controlled drill that can work itself
| through brick walls vertically from floor to floor (including
| steel-reinforced concrete ceilings) and in curves if needed.
|
| Hugely expensive toy, but creating no dirt, compared to classic
| methods of adding more wires.
| tdaltonc wrote:
| > Tarpit Ideas
|
| > Carbon removal credits on the blockchain. Using blockchain
| technology to solve the double-counting of carbon credits is an
| attractive idea but in our experience it's just a technology
| choice and a small piece of the product you ultimately have to
| build.
|
| I can't believe how often I hear this reasoning from people:
| Carbon credits have a double-counting problem? Blockchains
| prevent "double-spend"! Perfect solution! But as the quote points
| out, double-counting of carbon credits is not a software problem.
|
| At Jasmine, we're tokenizing climate assets but not to prevent
| "double-spend." https://medium.com/jasmine-energy/why-is-jasmine-
| building-on...
| HockeyPlayer wrote:
| > In the not-too-distant future, vehicles will charge when excess
| solar is available
|
| Emporia Energy's smart EV charger can already do this. So can our
| $9 smart plug. Disclosure: I work there.
| drusenko wrote:
| Big fan of your products :) Have bought a dozen of them
| personally.
|
| From what I understand, excess solar is more common in markets
| that have asymmetric import/export prices, like Australia, that
| strongly incentivize self-consumption vs. exporting back to the
| grid. CA is likely to implement this with NEM 3.0 so we are
| likely to start seeing this shift in behavior in the US soon as
| well. Right now there isn't much of an economic incentive to do
| excess solar in markets with symmetric NEM compensation (I'm
| sure you know all of this).
|
| Other problem we have in the US vs. AU is our cost of
| installation is so high that it makes oversizing systems
| somewhat cost prohibitive, which is what you'd need to do to
| get enough excess solar to charge an EV.
|
| Third problem is where cars are parked during the day while the
| sun is shining, which may be tough for people who commute to
| work. Energy storage can obviously help here somewhat.
| AdamH12113 wrote:
| Are high-margin luxury products really going to decarbonize the
| world? It seems pretty rare for companies that start on that path
| to move downmarket, but isn't that what we need to fight climate
| change?
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| I'm going to throw this out there: most of the promising
| companies in this space are likely going to get their seed
| funding from federal grants rather than incubators like YC. You
| may not be seeing deal flow because your product is unattractive
| to them in comparison.
| bombcar wrote:
| > Tesla for home appliances: re-inventing home appliances (water
| heaters, induction stoves, clothes dryers, etc) to create better
| consumer experiences using specific advantages of electric
| technology.
|
| I mean heat pump water heaters already exist [346] and they're
| reasonable in most everywhere (they put extra load on the furnace
| in cold climates in the winter but can still be a win overall).
| The main advance here might be more "smart integration" with the
| grid, but that is going to have to be a national level thing.
|
| [346] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-water-heaters
| nawitus wrote:
| You just need a spot market for electricity and then you can
| program the water heater to follow the spot price (or rather
| avoid heating when it's expensive).
|
| This is available already in a few heat pump water heaters in
| Finland.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| >water heaters
|
| Are we being serious? I have an electric water heater. I have
| an induction cooktop, which is electric by necessity. I have an
| electric clothes dryer. (Is there even a consumer-grade gas-
| fired clothes dryer on the market?) The consumer experience is
| fine. I turn on the hot water tap and hot water comes out. What
| am I missing?
| bombcar wrote:
| The only thing I can think of is a water heater that knows
| when power is cheap and preheats water hotter than it needs
| to be so it's available when you need it without using power
| ... I guess?
| nawitus wrote:
| This is becoming quite common in Finland (thanks to
| insanely high spot prices of electricity). Shelly is
| usually used to do the automation. Note that the water is
| not heated "hotter than necessary" but rather water is
| heated up to the max amount when the price is cheap.
|
| Traditionally water heaters were only on at night.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yeah the "max amount" can vary - I have mine set higher
| than "you should" to prevent Legionnaires' disease and
| then have a mixer that reduces the temperature back to
| safe for the house.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Cash-Acme-Thermostatic-
| Temperature-Ap...
|
| That's a very low tech solution that could take some
| advantage, and thermal mass of water is pretty high,
| especially if the tank is well insulated.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| One existing water heater innovation:
|
| https://www.mixergy.co.uk/products/mixergy-tank/
|
| Has both stupid innovation (Alexa integration) and sensible
| (working with the grid to balance demand, innovative design
| that saves energy and heats up faster when you need it
| quickly)
| malfist wrote:
| You mean you don't want to download an app to your phone that
| steals your data so you can....adjust the temperature setting
| of your hot water heater?
| bombcar wrote:
| If you're heating hot water you already have a problem ;)
| (I know, I know).
| browningstreet wrote:
| All this is relatively pointless (save "potentially profitable")
| without removing fossil fuels from general usage.
| dqpb wrote:
| The best way to remove fossils fuels from general usage is to
| make electric options cheaper/better that fuel options.
| notlukesky wrote:
| The only thing that would move the needle on a massive societal
| level is reliable nuclear energy in every city and country. But
| is that too hard for startups to tackle? Or it doesn't fit the
| narrative? Every other climate "tech" just nibbles at the margins
| if that even. And the byproduct of mass nuclear energy adoption
| would be that the issue is solved and there would be no more
| climate mongering amongst the conference crowd. They would have
| to find another "the sky is falling down" cause. That would also
| lead to less justifications for war from the war crowd if all the
| world had true energy security. Maybe that's why?
|
| Reminds me of this previous initiative:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Independence
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > They would have to find another "the sky is falling down"
| cause.
|
| You've nailed it. The people in power don't want to fix these
| problems. They'd like them to get worse, actually. "Never let a
| crisis go to waste" has the corollary "if a crisis doesn't
| exist, create one."
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| Why do people keep spouting this nonsense? Yes there is a place
| for nuclear in the mix, but renewables have already moved the
| dial in a lot if countries. I the uk about 40% of our energy is
| from renewables, mostly wind at 25% and biomass for much of the
| rest. Or does that not fit your narrative? Or do you not
| consider that moving the needle? It's a damn sight easier,
| quicker and cheaper to put up wind turbines and solar panels
| than it is to build new nuclear reactors as well
| avalys wrote:
| Nuclear reactors are expensive because we don't build any of
| them.
|
| Solar and wind occupy way more land for the same power
| production and can't produce baseload power without battery
| storage systems that cost 5x as much.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Bingo. Solar panels were outrageously expensive 15 years
| ago, but that didn't stop us from investing in them as a
| technology.
| drusenko wrote:
| Nuclear reactors are expensive mostly because the
| regulatory requirements make them expensive. There is a lot
| of room for advanced nuclear (e.g. gen III reactors) that
| can address a lot of the problems and bring down the costs.
| Unfortunately, we don't have a clear regulatory pathway
| here yet, but there is some progress being made recently.
| mattwest wrote:
| This isn't true and you are also probably confusing energy
| and electricity
|
| Edit: wow, since I'm receiving instant downvotes, here's the
| evidence.
|
| https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/.
| ..
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| Sharing this not to say it's true, but it's my understanding
| of the EU's biomass numbers.
|
| As I understand it, a substantial portion of the biomass is
| wood pellets. These are harvested from the American south
| causing deforestation, are transported over the ocean with
| non-negligible emissions, and then burned in non-clean stacks
| releasing carbon, but they are accounted for as green. So you
| get a dirty burn, dirty transportation, and deforest a region
| as part of these numbers.
|
| A quick search turned up this article:
| https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/us/american-south-
| bi...
|
| Its hard for me to accept that this narrative is correct, but
| I've struggled to find anything that explains how EU's
| biomass is net good for the environment. Do you have any
| insight?
| notlukesky wrote:
| The core issue is that they are unreliable when there is no
| wind or sunlight. Storage at scale is still not affordable or
| available for the whole world. The recent electricity issues
| that western Europe faced are indicative of the failings of
| unSustainable energy.
| lolinder wrote:
| "Renewables need to be supplemented" is a very different
| claim from "the _only thing_ that would move the needle ...
| is reliable nuclear energy " (emphasis added).
|
| Nuclear energy can't solve the problem on its own _either_
| , because you still need plants to deal with rapid changes
| in demand. We shouldn't be working towards a silver bullet,
| we should be using a lot of different technologies together
| to solve the problem.
| nawitus wrote:
| You just need nuclear and existing hydropower, which
| boils down to you just need nuclear. It's not politically
| probable or realistic though, but we really just need
| nuclear technically speaking.
|
| Nuclear can also follow loads, but there's no economical
| need to build them to do that (in almost any market).
| r_hoods_ghost wrote:
| The recent electricity issues are because Putin invaded
| Ukraine and reduced the gas supply. Which is nothing to do
| with sustainable energy.
| yongjik wrote:
| "We said we were running on renewables, but we were also
| dependent on burning Russian gas, and we plan to keep
| burning gas for the foreseeable future, sans the buying-
| gas-from-Russia part" sounds like a pretty important
| detail to talk about sustainable energy, IMHO.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| The problem is that a lot of the claims of "Renewables
| providing X percent of energy in country Y" are massaging the
| numbers. See the countless examples from Germany over the
| last decade (I'm including one of the most shared examples of
| this at the bottom of my post), suddenly shown to be highly
| deceptive by what has happened over the last year with
| Russian gas imports to Germany.
|
| https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-cover-
| about-...
| gustaf wrote:
| We are big believers in Nuclear energy, and it's part of the
| RFS.
|
| But many other sectors need to be electrified for nuclear power
| to have its decarbonization impact: buildings, industry,
| transportation etc.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| a few ideas, in no particular order
|
| - stop burning fossil fuels to the altar of the crypto crazy
|
| - stop burning enormous amounts of fossil fuel to produce AI
| models that poorly replicate human skills, without asking if
| someone wanted it
|
| - support power efficient devices or appliances. I despise Apple,
| for a lot of reasons, but the M series is a big step in the right
| direction.
|
| - don't buy Teslas, buy small cars that occupy a small parking
| space, if you live in a city. Better yet, don't buy a car, car
| companies will die eventually, better sooner than later, so we
| can make them a thing of the past like we did with horsecars. All
| of us would feel dumb riding or buying one of those nowadays,
| right?
|
| - support companies that actually do what they say, "90% recycled
| material" or "90% carbon neutral" is a brand, it's green washing,
| it's almost never true for large corporations. It will take the
| aforementioned Apple at least another 20 years to become really
| green, as in CO2 neutral and as of their actions had no terrible
| consequences on real people, in the real World.
|
| - The only ADV I was able to endure in the past 20 years was "buy
| better, wear for longer" by Levis. Which is actually a very good
| thing to do for the environment and for ourselves as humans. Fast
| fashion is stupid.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| I've worked in "climate intelligence" for many years. The list
| overlooks one of the largest and most immediate opportunities
| around that market: the data infrastructure and analysis tools we
| have today are _profoundly_ unfit for purpose. Just about
| everyone is essentially using cartography tools to do large-scale
| spatiotemporal analysis of sensor and telemetry data. The gaps
| for both features and practical scalability are massive.
|
| It has made most of the climate intelligence analysis we'd like
| to do, and for which data is available, intractable. And what we
| can do is so computationally inefficient that we figuratively
| burn down a small forest every time we run an analysis on a non-
| trivial model, which isn't very green either.
|
| (This is definitely something I'd work on if I had the bandwidth,
| it is a pretty pure deep tech software problem.)
| tdaltonc wrote:
| Companies with good climate intelligence tech tend to evolve in
| to marketplaces because that gets them closer to the money.
| Climate projects can't afford SaaS, but offset buyers are
| willing to pay a premium for offsets re-verified by high-tech
| climate intelligence SaaS.
|
| Example: Pachama https://pachama.com/
| worldsayshi wrote:
| What potential customers are there for climate intelligence
| systems?
| bmitc wrote:
| I would also love any references to existing companies,
| research groups, or the problems in this space if you have the
| time to share. I found the posted list underwhelming and more
| of a marketing shotgun approach to try and take advantage of
| the push for "climate tech" but not solve any real problems.
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| Not OP, but in my experience:
|
| Jupiter Intelligence (https://jupiterintel.com/)
|
| Descartes Labs (https://descarteslabs.com/)
|
| Microsoft Planetary Computer
| (https://planetarycomputer.microsoft.com/)
|
| Coiled (managed Dask - python HPC) (https://www.coiled.io/)
|
| CarbonPlan (https://carbonplan.org/)
|
| Salo Sciences (acquired by Planet, satellite imagery company)
| (https://salo.ai/)
|
| lots of others
| bmitc wrote:
| Thank you!
| PakG1 wrote:
| > Just about everyone is essentially using cartography tools to
| do large-scale spatiotemporal analysis of sensor and telemetry
| data. The gaps for both features and practical scalability are
| massive.
|
| Could you point to any readings or resources that would explain
| these gaps? I'd be quite curious why our current spatiotemporal
| analysis techniques would be insufficient. Is it the analysis
| tools that just need new techniques or is the problem at the
| source (i.e. the sensors)? Or?
| emmelaich wrote:
| We need sensors for carbon presence over distance and time in
| the ocean. At huge scale, to test the viability of various
| carbon sequestration schemes. That's pretty expensive, with a
| large non-software component.
|
| I know this from a peripheral involvement in one the XPRIZE
| projects.
| 2devnull wrote:
| I guess it would help to be more specific about how this
| differs from some of the measurement related startups they
| list. Taxonomies are difficult, so maybe they do need an
| entirely separate category, or enlarge the one related to
| measurement.
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| This is an excellent point. I think the problem is that because
| it's such a pure software problem it doesn't have an immediate
| "climate tech" alignment, so it stands to "dilute" these kinds
| of calls for funding.
| dheera wrote:
| Would you mind elaborating on say a few specific asks for tools
| climate people would want to have, that are low-hanging fruit
| that people might be able to write in their spare time?
|
| I'm very interested in doing something for climate change but
| I'd like to know what people want.
| babelfish wrote:
| Where could I read more about this problem and how it's being
| tackled today?
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| I hesitate to link to Twitter here, but Joe Morrison has his
| finger on the pulse of this and offers a tongue-in-cheek
| perspective that I appreciate:
| https://twitter.com/mouthofmorrison
| 2devnull wrote:
| Thanks for posting. His substack piece on the 3 m's is very
| appropriate.
| a_square_peg wrote:
| Out of curiosity, is accessing & working with large datasets a
| problem in your areas of work? I run a weather/climate site
| that makes some of this less painful, taking datasets such as
| GFS or ERA5/ERA5-Land much faster to access. We have some
| enterprise clients who really value the time-saving aspect of
| this but I also feel like everyone has their own data-
| processing set up and problems are different for everyone.
| baremetal wrote:
| Any chance you guys provide a free api for the little guy? I
| would love to have access to climate data via a json rest
| api. Specifically historical temperature and precipitation
| data at minimum.
|
| I poked around a while back and wasn't able to find much of
| anything on the web. Maybe I missed it?
| a_square_peg wrote:
| Certainly - take a look (https://oikolab.com) and let me
| know your use case. There is a free tier but we've also
| given free access to a quite a few number of researchers,
| non-profits and university students for their projects when
| they reached out to us.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| There are a couple issues I see with basic access and working
| with large datasets. Ease of access for typical users is also
| a valid issue.
|
| First, we still mostly move the data to the computation when
| we should be moving the computation to the data. Moving the
| data works fine when data is small but if the data volumes
| are large (as sensor/geo data tends to be) then it can take
| an incredibly long time to move the data. In many cases, more
| time is spent shoveling data over the network than actually
| doing the computation. This has become worse as storage
| density has increased, hundreds of TB/server is ordinary.
|
| Second, the data is rarely organized in a way that makes it
| efficient to extract arbitrary subsets. There is still a lot
| of what is essentially "grep at scale" going on. Again, not a
| problem if the data is small but if I need a specific 50TB
| subset of a 10PB source, this becomes prohibitively slow. The
| data needs to be organized such that we can slice and dice it
| with high selectivity _in place_ , much more like a proper
| database and less of a distributed filesystem. Because
| spatiotemporal analysis tends to involve iterative join-like
| operations, you want this to be efficient as possible.
|
| The other big problem is many of these data sources are too
| large for everyone to have their own copy. Or if they did
| have their own copy, it would be extraordinarily wasteful.
| This is adjacent to the first issue. EDIT: And herein is the
| likely business model.
| counters wrote:
| Want to make sure you're familiar with the Pangeo
| community: www.pangeo.io
|
| I don't think any of these challenges are "solved", but
| there's a groundswell of technology that is well-situated
| to make a big impact in these domains. The largest barriers
| that still remain are the ownership of engineering
| processes/workflow to transform larger gridded datasets to
| ARCO (analysis-ready, cloud-optimized) formats, as well as
| tooling to mediate between heterogeneous datasets (e.g.
| combining regular vs irregular or arbitrarily gridded data,
| such as land surveys or ZIP codes).
|
| There are definitely players in the space working on these,
| but much is left to be done here.
| a_square_peg wrote:
| +1 for Pangeo. We use these toolsets heavily (Xarray,
| Zarr, Dask) to run our service, which is essentially what
| you described as taking the larger gridded datasest to
| ARCO format. I think this is still a bit too heavy for
| casual Excel/GIS analysts so we try to make it as simple
| as possible for them to get climate data in CSV or NetCDF
| format for their work.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| This sounds really interesting. Would be really interested
| to work around these things. Thinking and working a lot
| with similar-ish systems. But not sure how to enter the
| related green-tech space when living in Europe. Would love
| to try to build a product myself but then I need a customer
| to try ideas with.
| Guthur wrote:
| Private interests have gotten us into this mess, to think that
| the same can get us out of it is wishful thinking of the highest
| order.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The missing thing: international incentive structures.
|
| Today, most things are done the most economical way. And that
| might involve emitting carbon.
|
| A country which regulates the emissions of carbon will end up
| producing goods and services using carbon free methods - but
| those methods will often be less economically efficient than the
| carbon producing method, even at scale.
|
| So any country that goes all in on the carbon-free world will end
| up economically worse off -- it's goods won't be competitive in
| the global marketplace. A government cannot subsidize itself to
| competitiveness in all markets.
|
| Solve that problem, and the world will decarbonize itself almost
| overnight.
| toiletfuneral wrote:
| [deleted]
| theptip wrote:
| YC can't solve that. I agree it's an important cause, but it's
| really hard coordination problem. If we can make progress
| without, just by using tech to lower emissions, that's a clear
| win.
|
| Having said that, a CO2 tax just makes the financial incentives
| for change better; someone still needs to build the better
| system after funds are reallocated. So if you already started a
| cost-reduction startup, you'll have first-mover advantage when
| the CO2 taxes come into play.
| tdaltonc wrote:
| You might be interested in the EUs new carbon border adjustment
| tax.
|
| https://www.ft.com/content/51e6bd85-dbb2-4071-b635-8ab9bd2ab...
| londons_explore wrote:
| It appears that all solutions to this problem require one of:
|
| * All countries to agree on an incentive scheme (unlikely -
| although big trading blocs like EU/China/Russia/USA might be
| able to bully the rest of the world into it with the threat
| of sanctions if they do not agree)
|
| * Some countries to agree on a scheme, and to break WTO rules
| to penalize (carbon tax) imports and subsidize exports
| to/from those who do not.
|
| Or... the world continues on the current trajectory of
| decarbonizing highly visible things only (Electric cars,
| solar panels on the roof!) to appease voters while avoiding
| decarbonizing anything that much affects nationwide
| competitiveness (eg. steel/fertilizer production).
| Raed667 wrote:
| Do people really believe we can innovate our way through climate
| change?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Yes, in fact I think we probably already have.
|
| There's still some politicss to overcome, but if the cheapest
| source of energy is low carbon then the problem is mostly
| solved in the big picture. As long as we don't hit too many
| tipping points we should be okay.
| kokanee wrote:
| Interesting position. Are you suggesting that the solution will
| not involve innovation, or that climate change is unsolvable?
|
| As an employee at a climate tech company, I think the primary
| roadblock is simply investing resources (money and time) in the
| various solutions available to us. A ton of innovation is
| happening along the way (e.g. first ever net positive fusion
| ignition yesterday) but even without much innovation, we could
| solve the problems by directing our resources at them.
|
| In other words, I think climate change is very solvable and
| that innovation along the way is constant and inevitable. I'm
| not saying that we will definitely make the necessary
| investments to succeed, which I think might be your point? But
| as this post demonstrates, the rate of investment is improving
| significantly.
| CabSauce wrote:
| The real question is did we start too late to curb climate
| change? We'll innovate to mitigate its damages either way.
| dev_daftly wrote:
| Do people really believe the climate was ever going to stop
| changing?
| dqpb wrote:
| Are you suggesting there is a solution without innovation, or
| that there is no solution at all?
| carabiner wrote:
| Public policy >> tech solutions. You might get a few people
| to replace their water heaters if you come up with one more
| efficient, but that's nothing compared to federally funded
| nuclear plants.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Innovation in nuclear has made it politically viable in the
| first place. If we still had to use 1970s nuclear tech it
| would be a hard sell.
|
| In any case, I'm always skeptical of "we can't do X without
| doing Y" arguments because they're usually about making the
| perfect the enemy of the good rather than X actually being
| precluded by not having Y.
| powera wrote:
| The list feels like "this is everything you can try" rather than
| "this is everything you should try".
|
| Some of these are "let's take an unrelated industry and try to
| cram _climate_ into its story ", others are ideas that are doomed
| to fail. And the "if only forests existed forever they would be a
| better carbon sink" argument is so flawed I am disappointed to
| see it at all.
|
| But, also a lot of good projects to work on in there.
| kokanee wrote:
| YC's business model is to invest in "everything you can try." I
| don't think this intended to be a list of opportunities that YC
| believes are 100% likely to succeed; it's intended to be a list
| that probably includes one or more ideas that will succeed.
| gustaf wrote:
| Which ideas are doomed to fail? I would love to hear your
| feedback
| datalopers wrote:
| I'm confused, I searched for both "crypto" and "web3" on that
| page and there are no results?
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Hopefully YC stops investing in those companies to help the
| environment
| z3c0 wrote:
| Then may I ask why you're shoehorning it into the conversation
| in such an unsubstantial way? Seems more like a cheap jab than
| a worthwhile opinion.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| Well, if YC is positioning themselves as "helping to solve
| the problem" I think it's completely valid to call them out
| for previously "helping to create the problem", in a humorous
| way.
| datalopers wrote:
| Because YC and other VC shops wouldn't shut the fuck up about
| crypto, web3, and blockchain across 2020-2021 and that sort
| of behavior doesn't get a free pass. Now they've moved onto
| Generative AI.
| wintogreen74 wrote:
| YC has generated enough wealth from these and other endless
| consumption ideas for a thousand lifetimes. The billionaire's
| playbook now dictates you focus on building your legacy by
| using disruptive technology to save the world.
| cjcenizal wrote:
| There is a bit under "Tarpit ideas":
|
| "Carbon removal credits on the blockchain. Using blockchain
| technology to solve the double-counting of carbon credits is an
| attractive idea but in our experience it's just a technology
| choice and a small piece of the product you ultimately have to
| build."
| mattwest wrote:
| The agriculture section is disheartening. What is the VCs worlds'
| obsession with cellular ag and mushrooms? Totally missing the
| forest for the trees here.
|
| Global calorie supply is dependent on the Haber-Bosch process
| i.e. Nitrogen fixation.
|
| The next big agricultural breakthrough will be some form of
| nitrogen fixation:
|
| 1. That is not affected by a reduction of fossil fuels
|
| 2. Is on par with Haber-Bosch in terms of elemental Nitrogen
| application
|
| 3. Does not require a massive shift in consumer preferences
|
| Also, the food industry is heavily reliant on energy sources that
| are not easily replaced by renewables. It needs dense energy like
| diesel and natgas. So there's another topic that should be
| funded.
| paulcole wrote:
| > Does not require a massive shift in consumer preferences
|
| This is getting more and more irrelevant by the day. If
| "climate tech" fails to "fix" climate change (a goal which I
| believe to be impossible), then it's not going to matter what
| people's preferences are -- the choices are going to be made
| for them and it won't matter what they like/dislike.
| mattwest wrote:
| Then ignore it, but rest still applies and requires
| innovation.
|
| But keep in mind that if two companies provide N-fixing
| technology, and one of them doesn't require changes in
| consumer preference, then they will be the winner
| xupybd wrote:
| The only way you will get change at scale before disaster is
| to help people keep their lifestyle.
|
| Climate change is a fixable problem. It is not anywhere near
| the point that choices will be made for people in the next
| two to three decades.
| guelo wrote:
| You're confounding the people of today with the people of the
| future. We've learned over the last couple of decades that
| the people of today in general refuse to make any sacrifice
| for the people of the future. This doesn't change when the
| people of today are negatively affected because any sacrifice
| is felt in the future and doesn't mitigate the negative
| consequences of today.
| hall0ween wrote:
| "You kidding me? I love eating bacteria-modified-plastic-
| waste-paste. Have _you_ tried the blue flavor yet?"
| philipkglass wrote:
| Projects to run the Haber-Bosch process with clean hydrogen are
| already underway:
|
| https://www.bicmagazine.com/projects-expansions/renewable-su...
|
| https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/08/26/avaada-to-invest-5-bi...
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/egypt-...
|
| They use electricity from wind and/or solar power to
| electrolyze hydrogen from water. Then the hydrogen gets
| combined with nitrogen in the Haber-Bosch process like usual.
| This is not a good bet for VCs because the capital commitments
| are large (billions of dollars' worth of physical chemical
| plant) and there's no prospect of winning the market by being
| early. Big industrial players are already earlier than VCs
| could hope to be at this stage.
|
| In some ways this is a trip back in time. In the 20th century,
| many renewable ammonia plants were constructed and operated
| using hydroelectric power:
|
| https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4079/3/2/11/htm
|
| It peaked in the 1960s (figure 6). A combination of rising
| demand for electricity at home and industry, plus optimization
| of hydrogen production from fossil feedstocks, made
| electricity-to-hydrogen (and from there to ammonia) less
| popular. But now rising natural gas prices and climate
| concerns, plus falling costs for renewable electricity from
| wind and solar, make it attractive again.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Would hydrogen work as a fuel source here?
|
| It would make sense for heavy machinery to use hydrogen rather
| than batteries as an energy store because it is a lot more
| energy dense (and lighter), but it's still not as energy dense
| as fossil fuels.
| vsareto wrote:
| >Low or zero emissions concrete
|
| Feels like there's already options there.
|
| https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a4078516...
|
| https://cen.acs.org/materials/Chemex-goes-global-carbon-neut...
|
| Although I'm betting it's better to just radically cut demand
| rather than try to invent a really good carbon-neutral/negative
| concrete. If we could sink a whole bunch of carbon into concrete
| though (significant carbon capture -> magic? -> concrete), that
| would be cool though.
|
| That's a really uncomfortable fact with a lot of climate issues:
| it's way better to just not do the thing instead of trying to
| find a neutral/net-negative carbon process for the thing.
| gustaf wrote:
| Making the world cut demand for concrete might actually sound
| dramatically harder than making zero-emission concrete. (and
| both are extremely hard!)
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Ironically, wood is starting to look like a very promising
| building material for tall structures that is comparatively
| green.
| ravenstine wrote:
| > Tesla for home appliances: re-inventing home appliances (water
| heaters, induction stoves, clothes dryers, etc) to create better
| consumer experiences using specific advantages of electric
| technology.
|
| > Tesla-like experience for home energy management: smart hub,
| including smart charging, load shifting, software-based load
| shedding for improved resiliency, and better circuit-level energy
| use measurement.
|
| With how Tesla vehicles are rated, and the unanimous lack of
| confidence in "autopilot" I've witnessed in owners, no way in
| hell am I do I want to "Teslify" everything in my home. In order
| to prove that there's something wrong with the current consumer
| experience, you have to bring an example to show it. So far, I've
| only seen ways to further add more surveillance and advertising
| into everyday people's lives, not to mention the increased
| disposability of appliances. No thanks.
| fundad wrote:
| Venture capitalists using Tesla in some kind of virtue signal
| is the most 2022 thing
| SalimoS wrote:
| The way I see it when talking about Tesla it's talking about
| the pre/post Tesla (aka the transition from ICE to EV in all
| auto makers) and not the build quality of Tesla per se !
| [deleted]
| slg wrote:
| Exactly, they are asking for technology that can shift their
| industry. They aren't asking for Tesla's baggage any more
| than a request for "Uber for X" implies they want a company
| that will ignore regulatory requirements.
| failuser wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that "Uber for X" implies some degree of
| ignoring regulations long enough to have power to change
| them.
| fabianhjr wrote:
| Why not pre/post electric Lada of the 1980s and associated
| R&D?
|
| https://www.reckontalk.com/electro-russian-tesla-first-
| elect...
|
| The biggest manufacturer of electric cars worldwide is BYD
|
| The biggest driver of sales (trough public policy) has been
| China and Europe, including things like announcing bans of
| ICE in city centers/cities:
|
| https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Electric_car_use_by_country
|
| Tesla started as a luxury brand (Roadster and then luxury
| sedans) and the only innovation they have managed is name
| recognition; even the adoption they have driven in the US has
| been mostly trough public policy like tax incentives.
| slg wrote:
| Because very few people will know what you are talking
| about if you go up to a random person and ask them about
| Lada or BYD.
|
| Musk is an egomaniacal idiot that most of us dislike. There
| are countless valid reasons to dislike Tesla as a company
| and the cars they make. However, that shouldn't cause
| people to overthink things when their name is simply being
| used as shorthand as it clearly is in this instance.
| esalman wrote:
| > Because very few people will know what you are talking
| about if you go up to a random person and ask them about
| Lada or BYD.
|
| This is why parent said only innovation Tesla has managed
| is name recognition.
| czbond wrote:
| ^ This. There is just a backlash on HN with Elon hurting so
| many people's feels about Twitter & having an alternate
| political view, that everyone is seeing him in a negative
| light.
|
| Tesla helped push ICE to EV even though technologically some
| of the efforts may have been done at other companies and
| products before - yet Tesla pushed the experience mainstream.
| agilob wrote:
| I would be a great disaster if Tesla or HP produced water
| boilers. If would be success if Brother or raspberry pi made
| them.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| The idea of "HP Instant Ink"-like subscriptions for home
| appliances is vomit inducing.
| agilob wrote:
| "Your boiler has reached the limit of water it can warm up
| this month. We're sending you a new one"
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| But think of the shareholder value they could accrue.
|
| Honestly, I'm not very mad at instant ink because the
| printer market was so broken. A subscription for another
| appliance would be pretty maddening, though.
| FredPret wrote:
| I have instant ink and I love it. First time ever I've been
| able to own a printer without swearing at it once
| Grustaf wrote:
| Tesla is indeed a strange choice for a simile, considering that
| Tesla cars use prodigious amounts of energy compared to other
| electric cars, or other cars in general. I doubt they're even
| more environmentally friendly overall than a compact combustion
| engine car. Tesla made electric cool by building an over the
| top luxury car, what we really need is the opposite.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| There are some cars coming out next year that are more energy
| efficient than a Tesla, like the Hyundai Ioniq 6, but I don't
| know of any currently widely available vehicles that are.
| robin_reala wrote:
| By energy efficient do you mean kilowatt hours / kilometer
| (or equivalent units)? The standard range Model 3 - the
| most efficient one - is apparently 15/16 kWh per 100km,
| which is pretty much exactly the same as a VW ID3 (15.5 -
| 15.7 in Pro spec) and only a little less than a Hyundai
| Ioniq 5 (16.8).
| odshoifsdhfs wrote:
| Sitting on my hyundai kona ev. In 2833 kms, consumption
| was 13.5 kwh/100km
| malfist wrote:
| Isn't the big problem with smart appliances exactly this?
|
| I was in the market for a new pellet grill recently and I ran
| into huge problems, almost everything on the market is
| bluetooth this or wifi that. The last thing I need is an
| unreliable radio to be at the center of the controls for my
| outdoor appliance, or for any appliance whatsoever, to have a
| dependency on my internet connection and the availability of
| some manufacturers servers.
|
| Because who know what might happen. The manufacturer might
| decide it doesn't like your hardware anymore and push out a
| firmware update that bricks all your devices in 60 days, but
| don't worry, they'll give you a coupon for buying the latest
| and greatest from them (looking at you sonos).
|
| Want to know how to not get me to buy your product? Make it
| dependent on some unreliable technology that gives no benefit
| to the device, but makes the device dependent on the goodwill
| of the parent corporation.
| ravenstine wrote:
| What's amazing is the failed potential of these devices that
| do include things like Bluetooth and WiFi. In so many cases,
| they sporadically fail to pair with their respective apps, or
| are slow to pair, if they can reliably pair at all. Even when
| the connection works, you'd better hope the app actually
| alerts you when your food is ready or whatever. _Whooops, our
| API returned a 500! Our bad, bruh!_
|
| I'm particularly baffled because, in my experience designing
| and manufacturing my own PCB with a BLE IC on it, integrating
| something like BLE and having it work reliably doesn't seem
| that difficult. BLE is an annoyingly complicated standard,
| but it's by no means impossible to work with. The app I wrote
| could pair with the device instantly and reliably stay
| connected while receiving data in real time. I don't get why
| other BLE devices I've owned have issues while my pissant
| attempt had none of them. If it's BLE, you can count on
| seeing some loading spinners frequently unless it's being
| paired with another devices designed specifically for it
| (like a game console).
|
| The only wireless digital technologies I've found are
| beneficial are WiFi internet and Bluetooth audio (which is
| still awful in most cases but AirPods work OK). Everything
| else ends up being a gimmick, more of a hassle, and even a
| trojan horse for more privacy violations.
| RangerScience wrote:
| > unanimous lack of confidence in "autopilot" I've witnessed in
| owners
|
| I'm an owner and I have a lot of confidence in autopilot.
| Generally, if it's possible to use autopilot on the road I'm
| on, I do. So that's one owner you're witnessing who's not part
| of that "unanimous".
| bmitc wrote:
| I came here to post this as well. For one, it doesn't even make
| sense. Tesla is a car manufacturer and makes objectively worse
| cars than the competition. They just happen to be EVs. Making
| any thing "Tesla" inside my house means it will be flashy but
| work less well than existing solutions, in addition to removing
| all knobs. All of which is the opposite of what I want. I've
| already de-smartified my Nests because, surprise, they aren't
| actually smart and end up being worse than me controlling them.
| ghiculescu wrote:
| What is objectively worse about them? They seem very popular
| with consumers.
| bmitc wrote:
| Popularity does not necessarily correlate with quality.
| Tesla is typically rated at the bottom for quality and
| reliability.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Tesla is pretty high on reliability, just not quality
| (ie. panel gaps and build quality issues are still a
| thing, but based on CR they're on-par with all the other
| non-luxury car brands).
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-
| owner-s...
| bmitc wrote:
| Note that that ranking only compares against other EVs,
| of which there aren't that many yet, and that Kia's new
| model, which has only been out for a year, is already
| above Tesla. I have said this for years, and it's been
| clear to me that Tesla cannot compete against traditional
| car makers moving into the EV space.
|
| Consumer Reports ranks Tesla at either the bottom or
| second to last when compared against all other car
| manufacturers.
| ravenstine wrote:
| For one, their interior is rather unluxurious considering
| the price tag relative to other EVs. The only thing it's
| got going for it is the tablet screen, which was cool back
| in the day but today anyone can install an aftermarket one
| in their old beater.
|
| If someone wants to buy a Tesla because they truly like it
| or the brand, they're the only ones who can decide the
| right answer for them. I personally don't get it. There are
| way better options now in my eyes; it's just they're uncool
| brand names like Subaru and Hyundai.
| mjhay wrote:
| Attempting to solve climate change with virtue-signalling
| consumption and production is worse than useless. That doesn't
| mean such things are necessarily bad startup ideas, though, but
| few things turn me off more than this sort of thing.
| [deleted]
| smileysteve wrote:
| Hybrid water heaters, active anode rods, and adaptive timing seem
| very revolutionary already. The other revolutionary aspect would
| be smaller point of use instant heaters that the world except the
| US use.
|
| Tldr; a lot of existing innovation exists that the US isn't
| purchasing.
| Giorgi wrote:
| Wait, what's the point submitting 2022 call?
| bmitc wrote:
| I'm not convinced that the solutions to climate change are tech
| related. If anything, climate change is tech driven.
|
| Addressing climate change doesn't really require startups and
| venture capitalist pump and dump schemes. It requires social and
| behavioral changes, mainly centered around consumption. Basically
| everything on this list would increase consumption,
| manufacturing, construction, road building, etc.
|
| There are many, many known solutions to climate change that do
| not require any new science or technology. We just don't want to
| do them. Lists like these are really just trying to invent new
| tech and science that allows us to keep current levels of
| consumption.
| admax88qqq wrote:
| > It requires social and behavioral changes, mainly centered
| around consumption.
|
| So far it seems these changes are going to be impossible to
| achieve. Like you say we just don't want to do them. Current
| levels of consumption will continue, and increase.
|
| So given that as a prior what are how do you approach the
| problem? If we can't change human behaviour can we innovate our
| way out of the problem?
| bmitc wrote:
| I think that's part of my larger point that companies and
| startups simply cannot solve this problem and are really part
| of the problem. Governments could mandate and incentivize
| changes, but companies would come kicking and screaming.
|
| > If we can't change human behaviour can we innovate our way
| out of the problem?
|
| Most human innovations have increased climate change. I have
| little optimism that we can suddenly adjust the dial. And
| capitalism is simply at odds with reducing or even moderating
| consumption.
| bokohut wrote:
| A great list to start with yet there are still several items
| missing from their projected speculations. As a core software
| architect and founder who has built multiple acquired ecommerce
| systems prior to and since the dotcom bust long ago I feel it
| prudent to emphasize to those that lack the experience to see
| what is happening yet again in an even more critical modern
| societal industry. The coming energy opportunities for those
| entrepreneurs among us here that possess the appropriate subject
| matter knowledge across hardware and software is significant, I
| cannot state it enough, "extremely significant". Should you have
| the tenacity and drive to create and build something which others
| state is not possible then there is no time like the present to
| start and prove them wrong as every living person NEEDS energy.
| Who knows, maybe along the way you even enjoy the journey and
| make a little income too.
| jerrygenser wrote:
| This paragraph seems gpt-like
| bokohut wrote:
| I unfortunately regret to disappoint you that a living
| breathing homo sapien wrote this, me. My writing style is
| mine and mine alone although GPT could very well imitate my
| style but in this case it did not.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-15 23:00 UTC)