21–30 of 120 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the damage will be done in 30 years. It's not possible to reduce population enough to matter in that time frame without mass genocide.
It's possible to reduce population by about 40% in 30 years without killing anyone, isn't it? Why is that obviously insignificant?
Yes, this is the case due to the enormous scale of production. Replacing the hydrogen source at similar scales with electrolysis is plausible with base load power generation. The cost increase is a small integer factor, and in the bigger scheme of things is likely something we can adapt to at least for agriculture. An obvious challenge is that we don't have available green base load power -- nuclear, hydro, or geothe…
Also, the continuous supply of power is exactly what the grid is designed to do. Availability of cheap nuclear or geothermal could change the economics. But the power is exactly the same if it comes from nuclear, renewables or battery storage.
This is the well known Haber-Bosch process, "Between 75 and 90% of this ammonia goes toward making fertilizer, and about 50% of the world’s food production relies on ammonia fertilizer." For those not looking to create a free account to login and view it: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-5f9t9...
This process is the reason Malthus was proven wrong back in the day. We wouldn't be able to support 8 billion people without it.
> Malthus observed that an increase in a nation's food production improved the well-being of the population, but the improvement was temporary because it led to population growth, which in turn restored the original per capita production level
What proved him wrong (or at least currently looks that way) was declining fertility levels, not increased food production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the damage will be done in 30 years. It's not possible to reduce population enough to matter in that time frame without mass genocide.
It's possible to reduce population by about 40% in 30 years without killing anyone, isn't it? Why is that obviously insignificant?
Yes, this is the case due to the enormous scale of production. Replacing the hydrogen source at similar scales with electrolysis is plausible with base load power generation. The cost increase is a small integer factor, and in the bigger scheme of things is likely something we can adapt to at least for agriculture. An obvious challenge is that we don't have available green base load power -- nuclear, hydro, or geothe…
You can also produce hydrogen at the point of generation if water is available, and store it using the now obsolete natural gas distribution network.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the damage will be done in 30 years. It's not possible to reduce population enough to matter in that time frame without mass genocide.
It's possible to reduce population by about 40% in 30 years without killing anyone, isn't it? Why is that obviously insignificant?
I am now curious what graph of age vs. CO2 emissions looks like for various populations…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the damage will be done in 30 years. It's not possible to reduce population enough to matter in that time frame without mass genocide.
It's possible to reduce population by about 40% in 30 years without killing anyone, isn't it? Why is that obviously insignificant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depopulation as in killing people? Or as in the one child policy? It turns out you don't need to implement a one child policy: people implement it themselves when the cost of living gets high enough.
obviously not killing people. I'm just demoralized that low birth rates are stigmatized as they are correlated with lower GDP, when low birth rates are somewhat of a godsend in times like these. Then nations with low birth rates scramble to find ways to up the birth rates despite understanding the C02 cost. It's ironic, really.
This is very interesting from an agricultural perspective. According to the Wikipedia article for ammonia, “In the US as of 2019, approximately 88% of ammonia was used as fertilizers”. To me this is a very interesting and damning fact with regards to current dominant agricultural practices. Yet another reason that it would be beneficial to further redevelop closed loop nutrient systems. For instance, sewage solids fr…
Seattle tried shipping their shit (literally) to the farmers in Central Washington. Used these trucks that had "loop: turn your dirt around" splashed on the side. Then the farmers decided maybe they ought to test that stuff for PFOA/PFAS before applying it to their most valuable asset.
You don't see those trucks anymore.