Live data from Hacker News

Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

nature.com

61–70 of 218 posts

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#61
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes energy, not time. It takes a long time if you passively wait for random environmental processes to slowly replace the water, and a very short amount of time if you actively apply energy to the problem.

That actually highlights the problem perfectly. Energy is the metric that matters. With current knowledge and level of technology humanity has, we can make almost anything by applying energy to shuffling dirt. Need gasoline? We can synthesize it. Need gold? We can recycle it out of stuff. Need drinking water? We can make it out of almost anything. All that's needed is energy, which is something we don't have much of…

Most our energy comes from fossil fuels. Even fertiliser for our food. So we can't just replace it all with solar power.

One key questions for rulers and governments from antiquity is how to allow the population to gather energy to survive. It could be farming, or building oil wells and then hand out the profits or build a service economy around the oil.

I couldn't figure out how to maintain a modern population without oil (more people same amount of land) until I saw this on HN the other day https://medium.com/invironment/an-army-of-ocean-farmers-on-t...

Zero input food. Can be used to generate ethanol. All you need is open ocean.

Food for thought.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#63
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually highlights the problem perfectly. Energy is the metric that matters. With current knowledge and level of technology humanity has, we can make almost anything by applying energy to shuffling dirt. Need gasoline? We can synthesize it. Need gold? We can recycle it out of stuff. Need drinking water? We can make it out of almost anything. All that's needed is energy, which is something we don't have much of…

Most our energy comes from fossil fuels. Even fertiliser for our food. So we can't just replace it all with solar power. One key questions for rulers and governments from antiquity is how to allow the population to gather energy to survive. It could be farming, or building oil wells and then hand out the profits or build a service economy around the oil. I couldn't figure out how to maintain a modern population witho…

> Most our energy comes from fossil fuels. Even fertiliser for our food. So we can't just replace it all with solar power.

But we can with nuclear plants, and I'm thinking garden variety fission plants, not the always-30-years-from-now fusion ones. There are various areas where we use fossil fuels only because its more convenient - e.g. ground transportation. We can go electric with most of it. Fertilizers - I'm not sure if petroleum is a necessary chemical component or just energy delivery vector for the production process. Plastics are I think the only area where we can't easily sidestep fossil fuels. But with enough electricity we can still synthesize the compounds we need for those processes.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Softdrinks are only one tiny part of number of products which uses water heavily. Add almonds, microchips, mining, recycling and I frankly don't understand what exactly it is you are skeptical about.

Almonds? Almonds are probably the most drought resistant plant grown for human consumption, it can grow almost anywhere without irrigation. In fact, too much moisture kills its roots.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#65
post #62

340literes of water is used to produce a pound of meat. ( https://news.vice.com/article/meat-is-murder-on-the-climate-... ) Water will be the new oil.

Desalinization technology is already pretty advanced [1], and the oceans are big. I really doubt it.

[1] The wikipedia article is a good place to start if you are interested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#66

I'm fairly anecdotally sure there would be a market for much less sweet fizzy drinks. I know I'm a weird outlier, because I dilute fruit juice with water to make it more palatable, but I think I'd really like sugary soft drinks if they had the same flavour but heroically less sweetness. My favourite soft drink is two parts orange juice from concentrate, to one part carbonated water; perhaps that's not sweet enough fo…

If you are an out-lier then I'm positively martian. I don't drink fruit juices or fizzy drinks. I eat the fruit and drink water, coffee and alcohol (the latter a few times a week).

Yoghurt drinks: UK local asian restaurants will bring you a glass of lassi, either sweet or with salt.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#67
post #62

340literes of water is used to produce a pound of meat. ( https://news.vice.com/article/meat-is-murder-on-the-climate-... ) Water will be the new oil.

Not really. The "used" here is quite different. The water doesn't disappear (but oil, when burned or used for other materials as plastic, really ceases to be oil).

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almonds? Almonds are probably the most drought resistant plant grown for human consumption, it can grow almost anywhere without irrigation. In fact, too much moisture kills its roots.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...

It's much less than other crops and the description says it's assuming irrigation is the only source of water, that's not usually the case. It's probably not the case with almonds at all, unless you aim for rotten roots. It's a desert tree.

Re: Dominions of fizz: the carbonated-drinks industry and public health [pdf]

#70
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not run the world on nuclear power? With breeder reactors, there is enough uranium for more than million years of current world electricity consumption. Nuclear energy is cheap, and modern reactor designs are safe.

It's never cheap. It's plagued by construction cost overruns. We're having this problem with Hinkley Point C at the moment: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/11/edf-chief-ex...

Even given the cost overruns, insurance, nuclear pools, etc it is quite cheap. The only problem with nuclear power is that it is highly centralized and requires significant upfront capital expenditures. And political consequences of radiophobia are so high that investing in nuclear power is limited.

I think that solar and nuclear are the only sustainable power generation methods these days. The rest are either bad for the environment, or ineffective.

Post reply on HN