Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_mitsuhiko | Hacker News Reader

Farming equipment is typically fuel based. And this appears to be the case for this robot as well: it uses Diesel.

At that point, is this more environmental than applying Round-Up to the field?

Each of these lumbering beasts goes 5 MPH, burning diesel the entire time. How many gallons of gas is going to be spent weeding a hundred acres of farmland?

How do you think the roundup is applied in the first place?

Well they are quite different pollutants. Hard to compare directly.

I know, and the two are often in conflict.

For example, replacing a deforested area might sometimes be faster by introducing a non-native invasive species. From a carbon perspective it would be a net-good, from an ecosystem perspective it would be a net-bad. Which is more important?

The QSF2.8 Diesel is a Tier 4 Diesel engine, so it is MUCH cleaner burning that most tractors out there.

Diesel engines can be eventually replaced with overhead wires

In a field? Not likely.

This is in no small part because of the massive subsidization of fuel for farming in most countries. Not only is the fuel for agriculture heavily discounted, but what you do pay can be written off against your revenues.

Same with most fisheries.

If governments want these sectors to go green, that is going to be a very big and painful band-aid to peel off.

You do realize that deducting the cost of producing a product is entirely normal and expected behavior right?

It’s not some special loophole.

If you use $1000 of electricity to harvest your crops, that $1000 would be equally as deductible because it’s just a cost of production?

> but what you do pay can be written off against your revenue

How is that different from any other business expense in any other industry.

Operating expense is different from a capital expenditure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com