813
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
813 points (85.9% liked)
No Stupid Questions
36182 readers
1584 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Are drones really less pollution than fireworks?
They’re not a replacement for fireworks.
Parent comment claims it would, so my questions refers to that.
Objectively yes.
Objectively, so you have some data to back it up? Do you have the comparative carbon footprint of those shows?
Yes, I do. Here you go champ.
No you don't, that's for fireworks, now we need the impact of drone shows to answer the problem. Would you have it?
Edit: I was wrong, it does mention drones.
Edit2: After proper reading. It only mentions it as an opening hypothesis in its conclusion. It does not quantify the impact of drones, which is what we need to understand if they are actually more eco-friendly.
My brother in christ, drones are all over that paper. Have you read an academic paper before? Do you know how to follow sources in papers? Tell you what, you go find some sources of your own and we can compare. Sitting back and saying "nuh uh" ain't gonna do it. Put up or shut up.
Ok, I got time to read it. Drones are only mentioned in one paragraph of the conclusion. Here it is:
The use of drones is an opening hypothesis, not the subject of the study. Impact of drones is not quantified, it is hypothesized to be lower. The linked papers that I have also checked also don't quantify the impact but similarly mention it as a potential eco-friendly alternative.
Would you have a different reading of this article?
My mistake, I read the abstract too fast and too late, let me read it and get back to you.
Lmao are you being serious or do you lack basic logic, drones are reusable and put off zero emissions, fireworks are not reusable and put off a shit ton of emissions.
Zero emission at use, not at fabrication, probably not when recharging and not as electronic waste at the end. Yes, I am being serious, considering only emission during usage is a very limited view of what carbon footprint is. A view that is often used by companies for green washing. Do you also believe electric cars are zero emissions? Considering full life, knowing which one emits more is not trivial.
And ignores the typical 20%-40% of energy lost to heat during charging for most batteries.
There are emissions in the production of fireworks as well. Drones can be recycled at the end of their life cycle, fireworks cannot be recycled. EVs ARE zero emission just like drones, they offset the emissions put out during their production after around 40k miles and are extremely energy efficient unlike combustible engines. An EV running on a coal fired electric grid puts off less emissions than a prius.
Absolutely, fireworks also have emission in their while life cycle, so let's get the data and compare. EVs are not zero emission and offsetting is not zeroing emission, it's just compensation, pollution is still being produced and if everyone does that we will not reduce it. In fact EVs sometimes have higher emissions than thermic card at fabrication, but it has been demonstrated that they emit less during their full lifecycle.
Yes, let's get the data. You first. You're really good at telling other people to go get data and sources. Show us how it's done.
Please stop with such language, we had enough of it on every mainstream platform.
I genuinely call for civility here.
As per the substance, as already mentioned, the production and later disposal of drones does have ecological footprint that is very much not negligible.
How are fireworks better then?
I wasn't the one to claim that, and neither was the person who opposed you, from all I could see.
There's just not enough research/calculation done on drones vs. fireworks, and a lot has to be taken into consideration. How often are the drones used? Are they recycled at the end of life? Which materials are used in their production, and what is their source of energy? etc. etc.
The advantage of fireworks is that they are very simple and use little materials to produce, most of which are safe (but some are not great).
Drones, on the other hand, require a lot of lithium and cadmium, as well as other basic resources like metal/plastic, silicon etc., and some parts of their manufacturing involve high-end facilities that require a lot of resources to maintain correct conditions. All of this leads to high footprint of their manufacturing, and if you use such drone just a few times for some large-scale swarms and then forget about it for a while, this will get way less ecological than fireworks.
Don't get me wrong, the technology is good and drones can absolutely be a superior option. But this heavily depends on how they're used.
I am not saying they are better. I am questioning if they are. Please don't mistake my question as veiled disagreement, I am not a Xitter user. Someone claimed an objective opinion, and that supposed to have data and a study to back it, but there likely isn't any yet. I am open to the possibility, I just want to make sure it is actually more ecological. It is objectively demonstrated for electric cars vs thermic cars, for fireworks vs drone show, it probably isn't yet.
Not "someone". Me. And I linked to the paper, which itself had many links to other studies backing up my claim. You essentially said "nuh uh, more sources" without providing any of your own. Your bad faith arguments don't work here, go back to Xitter.
Could you quote the articles? I read them and couldn't find the data that backs your claim. But maybe I missed it. As the person making the claim, it is your job to demonstrate it.
B-b-but they use batteries!!! Electricity bad! D:
/s
Batteries = genuinely bad.
Also, energy doesn't always come from clean sources, and even then, they do have footprint of their own.
Charging batteries typically loses 20%-40% of energy to heat.
Lol so?
I'm no expert, but this article covered what I expected: https://en.reset.org/drone-light-shows-could-provide-a-green-alternative-to-dangerous-and-polluting-traditional-fireworks/
Drones wouldn't scare the shit out of local wildlife and people's pets at the very least.