3 ms·
It sounds good, but nothing is zero impact. If an area the size of Washington state could feed the planet, it would imply that the solar energy hitting an area
by facepalm 11y ago
It sounds good, but nothing is zero impact. If an area the size of Washington state could feed the planet, it would imply that the solar energy hitting an area of that size is sufficient to produce all the food the planet needs. It seems unlikely to me, but I admit I haven't done any calculations (I don't even know how big Washington State is). More likely, those farms use "free food" that comes their way via ocean currents? So the effective harvesting area would be much bigger.
- aurelianito 11y agoIt seems to me that it uses as food the extra CO2 and Nitrogen that we are dumping into the sea. So the actual impact would be a better CO2 and Nitrogen balance!
- noir_lord 11y agoWashington State has an area of 184827 square kilometers. 247 acres to a square kilometer gives you 45652269 acres, article says 25 tonnes per acre, giving a yield of 1141306725 tons or about 160kg for every person on the planet. This makes lots of assumptions but even if you half the efficiency you are in the ballpark of 80kg of nutritious plant matter per every person on the planet. It would also work out at ~1600 shellfish per person on the planet. Lots of assumptions but it's in the ballpark.