3 ms·
The wiki page on them is kind of funny to me: > It's been stated that the land efficiency for Solar Foods methods is about 20,000 times greater than for conven
by gs17 2y ago
The wiki page on them is kind of funny to me:
> It's been stated that the land efficiency for Solar Foods methods is about 20,000 times greater than for conventional farming.[8] Michael Le Page for the New Scientist took a more sceptical view, noting that the x20,000 improvement only applies to the factories themselves. If land use for Solar panels is taken into account, then land efficiency only improves by about x10.
- digging 2y agoThe myth of the 20000x farmer, debunked. Merely a 10x farmer.
- actionfromafar 2y agoWhat if it's a large nuclear power plant?
- AtlasBarfed 2y agoNot. Economical. Also, the false assumption is that the solar panels would be consuming usable arable land, although of course the deconstruction of the criticism that reduces from 20,000 times to 10 times isn't listed. There's plenty of desert out there. There's also plenty of roofs and parking lots
- DennisP 2y agoThere probably aren't enough roofs and parking lots to run civilization plus produce enough calories to feed us. Deserts are nice but then you're talking about a lot of long-distance transmission, which gets expensive; most likely if we end up with a lot of fallow farmland closer to consumers, we'll use that. Still a great trade going from 40% to 4%. But if we do manage some kind of really cheap nuclear, that'd be even better.
- DennisP 2y agoWell if we can only recover 36% of the planet's land area, I guess that's not worth it then.