Combating Climate Risks With 3D Printing 85
Lasrick writes: While security risks that emanate from climate change will not always require military responses, the technological innovations that 3D printing makes possible can significantly improve the tools available for both militaries and civilian institutions when responding to, preparing for, and mitigating those risks. These benefits come in five main forms, and this article details what they are and how each may work: Rapid response and prototyping; Democratization of preparedness and response; De-globalizing hazards; Increasing accessibility; Enhancing energy efficiency. The authors clearly believe that 3D printing will be a key tool in mitigating effects from natural disasters: "If the United States, including the Department of Defense, truly believes that climate change presents 'immediate risks to national security,' then developing all the tools necessary to combat those risks should be a high priority. 3D printing, given its potential utility in helping us adapt to and mitigate climate risks, and doing so cost-effectively, is one tool that deserves close attention."
3D printing fanboi much? (Score:5, Funny)
3D printing! It slices, it dices, it cures erectile dysfunction (even yours!), it fucking prints money! It. will. save. the. world.
Whoa Sparky...slow down. Breathe.
3D printing may be useful, great, but kill the hyperbole. It is a technology, and all technologies have a niche. Be a 3D printing fanbois all you want, but you cannot jam 3D printing into places where it is not wanted or is not useful. The users will know the difference and 3D printing will settle into its niche naturally.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, don't be too harsh. At least, they aren't claiming, Twitter will help [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Damnit; I was going to side with you against the grandparent; then I read this:
In the future, printers might even use disaster debris as raw materials to print temporary shelters for people displaced by hurricanes or typhoons.
Because, it's easier to put up a building sized 3d printer than it is to deliver and put up a bunch of tents. I see this as the New New Orleans. We can find a major disaster; get billions of dollars of aid and instead of wasting it on feeding or housing the poor residents, we can spend it all on DARPA 3D printing experiments which might, theoretically, help a future special case disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to get together and donate 3d printers to the Red Cross [time.com].
Red Cross Spent Half a Billion Dollars to Build Six Homes in Haiti
Re: (Score:2)
I see this as the New New Orleans. We can find a major disaster; get billions of dollars of aid and instead of wasting it on feeding or housing the poor residents, we can spend it all on DARPA 3D printing experiments which might, theoretically, help a future special case disaster.
3D PRINTING ARTICLES OF THE FUTURE
From Sten Guns to Stem Cells: A Look Back [youtube.com] What was the world like before ubiquitous crossover technology revolutionized technology and biology? Its difficult to imagine a time when the plastic steak was the brunt of jokes, years before the plastic human was perfected. Now both steak and human alike are produced from the same Universal Cartridge, and this fascinating short documentary pokes fun at the metaphorical difficulties experienced by what we now call '2D Humans' when
Re:3D printing fanboi much? (Score:5, Funny)
Can we get a network of 3D printed things?
sorry, let me re-word that for the New Slashdot
You Won't Believe this Network of 3D Printed Things!
things you might also like:
-Top 10 Linux Celebs
-The problem between keyboard and chair might be closer than you think
-Why E3 Matters This Year
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get a network of 3D printed things?
sorry, let me re-word that for the New Slashdot
You Won't Believe this Network of 3D Printed Things!
Is it a Beowulf cluster? Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things!
Re: (Score:3)
A three-dimensional Beowulf cluster of these things!
Re: (Score:1)
does this mean I can 3d print Natalie Portman, while pouring hot grits down my pants?
Re: (Score:1)
1. 3D print Natalie Portman
2. Pour hot grits down pants
3. ???
4. Profit!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well you know, if you have a sufficiently large 3D printer and enough material, you could conceivably 3D-print a whole other Earth... /me ducks and runs like hell...
Re: (Score:2)
Well you know, if you have a sufficiently large 3D printer and enough material, you could conceivably 3D-print a whole other Earth... /me ducks and runs like hell...
I also would like to print some of those ducks.
But first you have to print the hen, rooster, chicken, then the duck... mmm, chicken....
Re: (Score:2)
Just print some eggs. I hear they came first.
Re: (Score:2)
They're already out there, but the Magratheans aren't selling them.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize the mice are going to be really angry, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:3D printing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:3D printing (Score:5, Insightful)
The article also seems to think 3D printers can make anything out of thin air. You save transportation costs because you don't need to ship anything, and you avoid supply chain disruptions because you don't have to ship anything.
From the article:
The effects of natural disasters extend far beyond individual companies. In 2012, a severe drought temporarily halted the transport of goods down the Mississippi River, affecting the entire region. This is the type of problem likely to become more common in a changing climate. The ability to print goods where they are needed would clearly decrease vulnerability to droughts and other disruptive weather events.
From the linked Bloomberg [bloomberg.com] Article on the drought:
which could be shut to cargo from companies including Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. next month.
-Agricultural. We can print food now?
“If you’re shipping raw materials to a steel mill in Chicago, you’re trying to figure out if you can go to Cincinnati or Louisville, Kentucky, unload it out of the barge and rail it up to the steel mill.”
-Thank god 3D printers can print steel out of nothing
Barges on the Mississippi handle about 60 percent of the nation’s grain exports entering the Gulf of Mexico through New Orleans, as well as 22 percent of its petroleum and 20 percent of its coal.
Good thing we can print fossil fuels now too.
Re: (Score:3)
Very good point. 3D printing basically lets you remotely manufacture a part if the raw manufacturing materials are present on site . And it does jack shit to fuel your equipment.
One of the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. military in the Iraq war was to be a driver in a convoy - the folks that had to haul fuel, water, and supplies through unfriendly country. I worry that some asshat in the Pentagon is going to read this article (written by asshats) and think that 3D printing magically makes supply lines inv
Re: (Score:1)
"Very good point. 3D printing basically lets you remotely manufacture a part if the raw manufacturing materials are present on site . And it does jack shit to fuel your equipment."
One of the more ridiculous claims in the Article was this:
"A new generator, for example, could be printed on the spot."
No, it can not. Not unless there is available Copper for the windings, Iron for the Magnetic stuff, Steel or Aluminum for the frame, not to mention Insulation, Lubrication, Bearings... and that is just the Genera
Re: (Score:2)
By the power invested in me by me, I mod this +1 Informative.
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely right, you can't make raw materials out of thin air, and introducing 3D printers just means there are a more raw materials being added to the mix.However, I'm going to jump off this comment to make a counterpoint: 3D printing has the possibility to make specialized finished goods as fungible as raw materials. Rather than worrying whether a person needs a shoe, a splint or a crutch, you can just send the raw plastic and the printer and figure it out on a case by case basis, which could be
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely right, you can't make raw materials out of thin air
Not yet, maybe, but in five years' time...
Re: (Score:2)
Buzzword bingo (Score:5, Insightful)
Peak Oil may be a ways off, but we've definitely hit Peak Buzzword.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the discovery of buzzword reserves has not yet peaked, so we're still at least 30 years off from Peak Buzzword.
Yes, 3D Printers are amazing! (Score:3)
On an unrelated note, is anyone interested in buying a barely used and a slightly dusty 3D printer?
Re: (Score:2)
On an unrelated note, is anyone interested in buying a barely used and a slightly dusty 3D printer?
Why don't you 3D print a copy of it and I'll take it off your hands for the costs of the materials?
Confusing Article (Score:3, Funny)
TFA is unclear.
Are the 3D-printing fanbois trying to ride on the Warmist's :"perceived-legitimacy" coattails, or is it the Wamists who are attempting to ride 3D-printing's "perceived-legitimacy" coattails?
Seems to be a lose-lose either way.
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
Don't you see it? No analysis, no statistics (hey, we are POLITICAL majors, c'mon!), buzzwords eveywhere ("De-globalizing hazards" and "Democratization of preparedness and response"). Pseudoscience in its finest: lots of talks and nothing valuable. Besides, one of the authors is so shy he didn't even include his education in the linkedin profile [linkedin.com]. They've just heard 3D printing is cool and pumped out a useless empty paper like TFA.
What is reall
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it: the authors are from Political Science!
The authors are from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. They claim they've been "speaking truth to power for 70 years."
The problem with "speaking truth to power" is once they've heard you, your job is done, and you have to find something else to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA is unclear.
Are the 3D-printing fanbois trying to ride on the Warmist's :"perceived-legitimacy" coattails, or is it the Wamists who are attempting to ride 3D-printing's "perceived-legitimacy" coattails?
Seems to be a lose-lose either way.
Strat
You know, the nice thing about being a "Warmist" is that we can just sit back and point out the things that are happening while people on the other side have to work hard to find the slightest little thing that might appear to support their position. I am very concerned about the future for human civilization but I have no concern at all that "Warmist" position will be found to have been wrong in the big picture.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no concern at all that "Warmist" position will be found to have been wrong in the big picture.
And if it that ever happens again then NOAA et al. will simply "correct" the numbers again, so yeah, that's a pretty good bet.
Now all you have to do is make China stop filling the atmosphere with carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers are just about quantifying the effects. Do you think if we didn't collect those observations the problem wouldn't exist? Meanwhile temperatures continue to rise, sea level continues to rise, ice continues to melt and the oceans continue to acidify.
Carbon emissions are everybody's problem, China is only one part of that and right now they're spending more on it than the US. In order to stop AGW everyone the world over has to reduce carbon emissions to a net zero. There really is no other answ
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think if we didn't collect those observations the problem wouldn't exist?
Yes. AGW would still exist, but the current high level of hysteria? Probably not. I don't think AGW is the biggest climate problem today, but rather the hysteria about it which is spurring us to make poor short term choices. In a century or two, we may have a real AGW problem. In which case, I'll be quite happy to change my opinion.
Carbon emissions are everybody's problem, China is only one part of that
A part which is growing at about 50% of all increase in CO2 levels. They can single-handedly neuter any attempt at AGW mitigation.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, a lukewarmer. You must be extremely confident in your prediction of a century or two before AGW becomes a problem. If you're wrong we're in for a hell of a ride. By the time it's blindingly obvious to everybody it's way to late to stop some serious effects like multiple feet of sea level rise and the breakdown of permafrost in the Arctic.
Did you know that China actually used less coal last year than the year before? China is taking the problem seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, a lukewarmer. You must be extremely confident in your prediction of a century or two before AGW becomes a problem. If you're wrong we're in for a hell of a ride. By the time it's blindingly obvious to everybody it's way to late to stop some serious effects like multiple feet of sea level rise and the breakdown of permafrost in the Arctic.
Did you know that China actually used less coal last year than the year before? China is taking the problem seriously.
The problem is uncertainty. There is nowhere near enough certainty about if there actually is a problem, how bad it really is, and just what can effectively be done about it without risking destroying the only environment we have.
Politicians/political groups, environmental activist groups, and others have thoroughly muddied and politicized the issue, destroyed/faked data, on and on, and have all but completely destroyed scientific credibility related to the climate in the eyes of the public.
The solutions pu
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is uncertainty. There is nowhere near enough certainty about if there actually is a problem, how bad it really is, and just what can effectively be done about it without risking destroying the only environment we have.
Uncertainty is not your friend. There may not be a lot of certainty about how bad the problem will be but there is no more certainty that it will not be that bad. Risk management principles tell you when the uncertainty is high the prudent course is to take steps to avoid the uncertainty.
Politicians/political groups, environmental activist groups, and others have thoroughly muddied and politicized the issue, destroyed/faked data, on and on, and have all but completely destroyed scientific credibility related to the climate in the eyes of the public.
The politicization of the the issue has mainly been from the contrarian side. They are using the same techniques that tobacco companies used to delay action against their products and some of them are the same people, Fr
Re: (Score:2)
The politicization of the the issue has mainly been from the contrarian side.
OK, I can see I'm dealing with a True Believer.
We're done here.
Good day, Sir.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I can see I'm dealing with a True Believer.
Back at ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Uncertainty is not your friend. There may not be a lot of certainty about how bad the problem will be but there is no more certainty that it will not be that bad. Risk management principles tell you when the uncertainty is high the prudent course is to take steps to avoid the uncertainty.
The prudent step here is to not have seven plus billion people. That didn't happen. As a result we face considerable uncertainty no matter what happens.
In reality you simply are stating a preference for certain courses of action without a rational basis.
The politicization of the the issue has mainly been from the contrarian side. They are using the same techniques that tobacco companies used to delay action against their products and some of them are the same people, Fred Singer for example. I've never seen any credible information about destroyed and/or faked data.
Greenpeace is an obvious counterexample. My first exposure to the politicization of the issue was Greenpeace accusing Du Pont of (IIRC) "Cooking the Earth" some point around the summer of 1989. This was just in the wake of the Montreal Protocol which was
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you about 7 billion people. There were under 3 billion when I was born. But the only moral way I see that we could have avoided that would have been to put a bunch of money into education and raising the standard of living in those areas where the population is growing so fast. It's a certain thing that if 7 billion is too many nature will take care of the problem sooner or later.
Regarding Greenpeace. I don't deny there are hyerbolic statements from my side of the issue. I don't pay any mor
Re: (Score:2)
The reason models fit the past better is that much of the unknown data from that future is known data in the past and factored in to the model runs.
Of course. But I've run into several cases where the future performance of the model was excused on the basis of natural variation in climate despite past performance fitting very well. The variation didn't suddenly change the moment the model went from past to future.
How do you expect scientist to predict things like the cycles of ENSO or volcanic eruptions ahead of time?
How much are those models modeling that which they shouldn't be modeling?
Re: (Score:2)
You must be extremely confident in your prediction of a century or two before AGW becomes a problem.
That's what the scientists are predicting. Also, why should we treat AGW as more special a risk than all the other global risks? Some of those risks are a much bigger problem than AGW and can be worsened by poor AGW mitigation strategy.
Did you know that China actually used less coal last year than the year before?
Even if true, a one year blip doesn't make a trend.
By the time it's blindingly obvious to everybody it's way to late to stop some serious effects like multiple feet of sea level rise and the breakdown of permafrost in the Arctic.
I'm ok with that. Blindingly obvious is better than acting without evidence of harm and danger.
Re: (Score:2)
As for China, they could single handily neuter any attempt at AGW mitigation, but instead they are doing the opposite. Their emissions growth has shrunk dramatically, they are reducing coal use faster than anyone expected (from a peak 2 years ago), they are installing more wind and solar than anyone one earth while supplying 80% of wind and so
Somebody writes grants (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly somebody owns a 3D printing company and is looking to get grants from the EPA and DARPA, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The EPA would want to fix climate change
No, the political appointees who run that agency and the career employees who are working towards their federal pension while doing time in that agency see a scary but ill-defined and vaguely-causality-challenged "climate change" monster as a full-on political power, permanent employment, and budget expansion opportunity. They want problems, because that's what they're supposed to study and make policies about. If they don't see a problem, they have to lower the bar until something that's not a real proble
Re: (Score:2)
I think someone needs to have their blood pressure checked....
You don't personally know people who work for the EPA, do you? I can tell.
What happened here? (Score:2)
k.... I tried to follow the thinking here and failed.
It's as though someone took the terrified mind of a Sierra Club propagandized millennial and blended it with the mind of a slashdot basement dweller; out pops a strange being that blathers endlessly about 3D printing, climate change and saving the world.
Re: (Score:2)
"If we suffer a bad enough catastrophe, you're going to be really glad that we can 3D-print disposable gun parts. Other than that whole 'needing electricity and industrially manufactured raw materials for your 3D printer' part.
Re: (Score:2)
The first thing to fo ... (Score:2)
... is to download the software template for a power station right off the Internet.
Oh, wait ...