5 ms·

Stop using fertile land to produce fuels for energy hungry cars and energy for industry. Use fertile land for FOOD. Then, use all the rest of the land for ener

Stop using fertile land to produce fuels for energy hungry cars and energy for industry. Use fertile land for FOOD. Then, use all the rest of the land for energy production: roofs, parking lots, infertile land.

irjustin 3y ago
Question, don't we have enough food production[0]? Basic search says we're doing well enough in that regard. [0] https://news.thin-ink.net/p/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-15#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20world%20produces%20150,1.5x%20the%20global%20population https://news.thin-ink.net/p/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-1....
- mcv 3y ago
  We could easily feed everybody. We just choose not to. And we could feed even more if we just ate less beef.
- Synaesthesia 3y ago
  One reason is a lot of food grown is used as animal feed. It's a lot more efficient to take soy beans and process them into tofu and other foods, like they do in Japan, than to use it as cattle feed (which is where most soy goes) It's also an issue of distribution and local production, eg countries making food for export rather than to feed their own population. Like in Honduras the people grow strawberries and cattle for export rather than beans and corn for local use.
  - bequanna 3y ago
    I hear you. I live in the Midwest and see endless monoculture fields dedicated to mostly corn and soybeans. It’s very disappointing. I think the tough part is finding crops fit for human consumption that actually grow in these areas and can be farmed efficiently at scale. Soy is not a great example IMO because it is difficult for humans to digest without fermentation.
    - Synaesthesia 3y ago
      Soy has so many uses, in Japan they find 101 uses for it. In fact I like it just as it is, soaked and boiled and cooked in a curry.
- vsareto 3y ago
  The US throws out tons of food so we probably need less here, actually
cubefox 3y ago
Nuclear power plants use of land is almost zero compared to wind farms and solar parks.
- radicalbyte 3y ago
  It's good that we started building an insane number of said plants 20 years ago. I'm a fan of nuclear but it just takes too long to deploy compared to wind/solar and that is an absolute killer for ROI (and the climate). We should be building out but only as a secondary/support not as the main source of energy.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    The slow building times are more due to regulatory overreach. Wind/solar are more expensive overall, as Germany shows.
  - KptMarchewa 3y ago
    >I'm a fan of nuclear but it just takes too long to deploy compared to wind/solar and that is an absolute killer for ROI (and the climate). Unless you build it like Koreans.
- pvaldes 3y ago
  But if something goes wrong they will grab this areas and several Km around, for thousands of years, banning people to live there.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    In Fukushima most of the area is safe now: https://blog.japanwondertravel.com/fukushima-exclusion-zone-tour-is-it-safe-to-visit-41130 https://blog.japanwondertravel.com/fukushima-exclusion-zone-... So the only large permanent contamination seems to have happened in Chernobyl.
- lavela 3y ago
  If you take mining and the fact that solar power can be installed on top of existing infrastructure into account, the comparison of land use is still in favor of nuclear, but definitely not "almost zero".
throw3823423 3y ago
If your goal is maximizing acreage for farming, a pretty good idea would be to get rid of land dedicated to our number one crop: grass that gets mowed. We spend over 40 millions of acres in lawns, as farms get replaced with subdivisions that are well over 50% lawn, and most of the rest is asphalt. Your typical American metro area is very low density, but not because it has a lot of land dedicated to farming, or old growth woods, but because we dedicate so much space to very low density development that erases whatever was in that land in the first place. The trees are not local, the plants aren't local, and neither is the concrete.
- Llamamoe 3y ago
  Maybe there could be a business idea in AI-powered semi-automated(remote oversight) lawnmowing that pays for itself by collecting the grass for ethanol production.

irjustin 3y ago

Question, don't we have enough food production[0]? Basic search says we're doing well enough in that regard. [0] https://news.thin-ink.net/p/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-15#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20world%20produces%20150,1.5x%20the%20global%20population https://news.thin-ink.net/p/we-produce-enough-food-to-feed-1....

mcv 3y ago
We could easily feed everybody. We just choose not to. And we could feed even more if we just ate less beef.
Synaesthesia 3y ago
One reason is a lot of food grown is used as animal feed. It's a lot more efficient to take soy beans and process them into tofu and other foods, like they do in Japan, than to use it as cattle feed (which is where most soy goes) It's also an issue of distribution and local production, eg countries making food for export rather than to feed their own population. Like in Honduras the people grow strawberries and cattle for export rather than beans and corn for local use.
- bequanna 3y ago
  I hear you. I live in the Midwest and see endless monoculture fields dedicated to mostly corn and soybeans. It’s very disappointing. I think the tough part is finding crops fit for human consumption that actually grow in these areas and can be farmed efficiently at scale. Soy is not a great example IMO because it is difficult for humans to digest without fermentation.
  - Synaesthesia 3y ago
    Soy has so many uses, in Japan they find 101 uses for it. In fact I like it just as it is, soaked and boiled and cooked in a curry.
vsareto 3y ago
The US throws out tons of food so we probably need less here, actually

cubefox 3y ago

Nuclear power plants use of land is almost zero compared to wind farms and solar parks.

radicalbyte 3y ago
It's good that we started building an insane number of said plants 20 years ago. I'm a fan of nuclear but it just takes too long to deploy compared to wind/solar and that is an absolute killer for ROI (and the climate). We should be building out but only as a secondary/support not as the main source of energy.
- cubefox 3y ago
  The slow building times are more due to regulatory overreach. Wind/solar are more expensive overall, as Germany shows.
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  >I'm a fan of nuclear but it just takes too long to deploy compared to wind/solar and that is an absolute killer for ROI (and the climate). Unless you build it like Koreans.
pvaldes 3y ago
But if something goes wrong they will grab this areas and several Km around, for thousands of years, banning people to live there.
- cubefox 3y ago
  In Fukushima most of the area is safe now: https://blog.japanwondertravel.com/fukushima-exclusion-zone-tour-is-it-safe-to-visit-41130 https://blog.japanwondertravel.com/fukushima-exclusion-zone-... So the only large permanent contamination seems to have happened in Chernobyl.
lavela 3y ago
If you take mining and the fact that solar power can be installed on top of existing infrastructure into account, the comparison of land use is still in favor of nuclear, but definitely not "almost zero".

throw3823423 3y ago

If your goal is maximizing acreage for farming, a pretty good idea would be to get rid of land dedicated to our number one crop: grass that gets mowed. We spend over 40 millions of acres in lawns, as farms get replaced with subdivisions that are well over 50% lawn, and most of the rest is asphalt. Your typical American metro area is very low density, but not because it has a lot of land dedicated to farming, or old growth woods, but because we dedicate so much space to very low density development that erases whatever was in that land in the first place. The trees are not local, the plants aren't local, and neither is the concrete.

Llamamoe 3y ago
Maybe there could be a business idea in AI-powered semi-automated(remote oversight) lawnmowing that pays for itself by collecting the grass for ethanol production.