It is just compressed air, though it’s an insane amount of energy stored in that form. The number that will actually have that function will be so small that it probably doesn’t matter, though the emissions of car-centric transport are absolutely crazy. give me more trains!
Scott Manley estimated it at around 45kWh, so about 2/3 of a charge. Not that much energy in the grand scheme of things, but not anywhere near practical either.
By car battery standards, an absurdly large amount of energy. And it’s released in a pretty inefficient manner. So not a good plan for EV range.
I don’t think you could reasonably use them on the road without harming people around you either (though Musk’s target audience may not be very concerned about that aspect).
I think it works for track usage / showing off to your wealthy friends. I have no clue how the flying version would work control wise, as you’d need to plan the entire flight ahead of time so it could verify it’s possible (before you take off down the Grand Canyon and run out of gas a few seconds later). Probably one of the reasons it’s not being sold to everyone.
Tesla and other EV companies tend to have a bunch of carbon credits earned (from being EV companies) which they sell to polluters for the right to pollute.
Attached caps are there for a purpose. They work. So no, they are not stupid.
What is stupid is that comic which is completely misrepresenting what those attached caps are about to create a false hypocrisy to make fun of (about the caps probably even more than about the Tech bros).
It is strange, to see how it is taking up the same anti-EU propaganda usually spread by Tech bros. The attached caps solve a problem and that is that caps are one of the largest trash types on beaches and in forests. They are such a big issue because due to the small size they are also laboursome to clean. Attached caps considerably reduce the number of separated caps and also of trash as a whole ending up there. They don’t really cost more, don’t need more resources and you can use them just as easily, if you are not completely incapable of adapting to change on a most fundamental level.
It is really just the new banana myth really. Except that one could question trade quality standards maybe a bit more (but still have a hard time to argue how 27 different standards would be better than just one) but the caps really have just a lot of big advantages and basically no meaningful disadvantage. I mean, for those really phobic of attached caps, they can be easily removed if you are really into that.
The purpose was to reduce plastic pollution. According to latest data, across entire EU beverage industry, the plastic usage for attached caps is around 200,000 tonnes, equaling to around 381 million kg CO2 increase and that’s not even taking in mind how much re-fitting and throwing out perfectly good manufacturing machines costs.
Initially I was supportive of this, but after experts around the EU started coming out about how bad of an idea this actually was… I don’t know man.
Your comment on CO2 makes no sense. First you are talking about the amount of plastic used for caps (without a reference to before) and then you are talking about a “CO2 increase”. Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.
If I am not mistaken, the transition period was 5 years. So even for the worst case, no brand new mold had to be discarded because it all came so sudden. I would not be surprised if many had at least one change already during the transition time even without that regulation. Also tooling can be sold or transferred as well, if it is really still in such a good shape. Now, would have been a longer transition period, maybe 10 year, been better? Maybe.
Your comment sounds like a very biased view of the industry that understandably wasn’t enthusiastic about it, as the only one benefiting from it was the environment, which doesn’t do anything for them, right?
Honestly when I first encountered one I hadn’t heard of the regulatory reasons for it and I just thought, “oh, neat”. I wonder how many people who complain about them were prevented from forming their own opinions by being told to hate it first.
Heard it was just compressed air?
it’s about plastic pollution not carbon
But like, still, yeah… “pLaStIc StRaWs”
It is just compressed air, though it’s an insane amount of energy stored in that form. The number that will actually have that function will be so small that it probably doesn’t matter, though the emissions of car-centric transport are absolutely crazy. give me more trains!
Sorry, best we can do is reinvent a bus for the 50th time and make it get stuck at a red light.
I’m curious about the actual energy cost of the compressors tbh. How much battery range will go to car RCS thrusters?
Scott Manley estimated it at around 45kWh, so about 2/3 of a charge. Not that much energy in the grand scheme of things, but not anywhere near practical either.
It’s a supercar, being practical isn’t the point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex4Qg-gkLNg&t=530
By car battery standards, an absurdly large amount of energy. And it’s released in a pretty inefficient manner. So not a good plan for EV range.
I don’t think you could reasonably use them on the road without harming people around you either (though Musk’s target audience may not be very concerned about that aspect).
I think it works for track usage / showing off to your wealthy friends. I have no clue how the flying version would work control wise, as you’d need to plan the entire flight ahead of time so it could verify it’s possible (before you take off down the Grand Canyon and run out of gas a few seconds later). Probably one of the reasons it’s not being sold to everyone.
Sounds reasonable to fill while charging, and It would be interesting for cliff falling
EVERYTHING is better with more trains :)
Tesla and other EV companies tend to have a bunch of carbon credits earned (from being EV companies) which they sell to polluters for the right to pollute.
It earns EV companies a lot of money.
The attached bottle caps are pretty stupid, but people who get unreasonably angry about it are even worse.
If the things piss people off so much, it barely take any effort to just pull them the fuck off the bottle.
Attached caps are there for a purpose. They work. So no, they are not stupid.
What is stupid is that comic which is completely misrepresenting what those attached caps are about to create a false hypocrisy to make fun of (about the caps probably even more than about the Tech bros).
It is strange, to see how it is taking up the same anti-EU propaganda usually spread by Tech bros. The attached caps solve a problem and that is that caps are one of the largest trash types on beaches and in forests. They are such a big issue because due to the small size they are also laboursome to clean. Attached caps considerably reduce the number of separated caps and also of trash as a whole ending up there. They don’t really cost more, don’t need more resources and you can use them just as easily, if you are not completely incapable of adapting to change on a most fundamental level.
And don’t forget, an animal is much less likely to eat a whole bottle with the cap attached than they are eating a bottle cap by mistake.
It’s just a win all around and the people who get angry about them are just selfish assholes.
It is really just the new banana myth really. Except that one could question trade quality standards maybe a bit more (but still have a hard time to argue how 27 different standards would be better than just one) but the caps really have just a lot of big advantages and basically no meaningful disadvantage. I mean, for those really phobic of attached caps, they can be easily removed if you are really into that.
The purpose was to reduce plastic pollution. According to latest data, across entire EU beverage industry, the plastic usage for attached caps is around 200,000 tonnes, equaling to around 381 million kg CO2 increase and that’s not even taking in mind how much re-fitting and throwing out perfectly good manufacturing machines costs.
Initially I was supportive of this, but after experts around the EU started coming out about how bad of an idea this actually was… I don’t know man.
Your comment on CO2 makes no sense. First you are talking about the amount of plastic used for caps (without a reference to before) and then you are talking about a “CO2 increase”. Caps do not appear to be larger or heavier than before but what do I know.
If I am not mistaken, the transition period was 5 years. So even for the worst case, no brand new mold had to be discarded because it all came so sudden. I would not be surprised if many had at least one change already during the transition time even without that regulation. Also tooling can be sold or transferred as well, if it is really still in such a good shape. Now, would have been a longer transition period, maybe 10 year, been better? Maybe.
Your comment sounds like a very biased view of the industry that understandably wasn’t enthusiastic about it, as the only one benefiting from it was the environment, which doesn’t do anything for them, right?
You could have spent 10 seconds googling this before typing all that. They literally do.
You do know manufacturing is a major contributor to CO2, right? …right?
https://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/more-plastic-more-carbon-more-cost-why-attached-bottle-caps-are-not-the-way-to-fix-waste/
I dunno, I actually quite like them when I’m on the go and order a bottled drink, no way to lose the cap :)
Honestly when I first encountered one I hadn’t heard of the regulatory reasons for it and I just thought, “oh, neat”. I wonder how many people who complain about them were prevented from forming their own opinions by being told to hate it first.
That’s what I wonder about many many things these days.