111–120 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do drink the water, presumably.
They could have drank it for free or for minimal tax investment but now they have to give money to Nestle to do so while also polluting the planet with plastic bottles
There may be good news on this front. Most of this water is being used to farm, specifically to grow feed crops for cattle. Anyone that can hearken back to elementary school will remember that you lose a lot of energy in the food chain. It takes an absolute shitton of water to get to a steak, 1800 gallons for one 16oz cut ( https://www.denverwater.org/tap/whats-beef-water ). But a demographic crises is coming. I was…
But where does the water go? It can't simply just vanish. It's a capacity problem, right? Also who cares who eats the beef? If you price in the water usage then these people eating all the beef will either keep eating and pay for their use or stop. Don't blame people for enjoying their life. It's akin to blaming people for using electricity when it is powered by coal...
Basically if demographics hold, then the US will see a drop in beef consumption in 5 years and in part, more water conservation lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you get the idea I supported almond production for milk substitutes. I specifically cited other much lower water usage milk substitutes like oat and soy. > Also you will take my Steak and Hamburger over my dead body... America will never, not in may life time, give up Beef, it is after all what is for dinner. Also not relevant, but ok. I'll make a note of it. Personally, I think meat should just be much mor…
Regardless, as I understand it, it's well-established that almond milk uses less water per gallon than dairy milk. However, we grow almonds in areas that don't have enough water, and milk is often produced in areas with surplus water. Either way, I prefer soy milk.
Are you at all concerned about hormone imbalances?
There may be good news on this front. Most of this water is being used to farm, specifically to grow feed crops for cattle. Anyone that can hearken back to elementary school will remember that you lose a lot of energy in the food chain. It takes an absolute shitton of water to get to a steak, 1800 gallons for one 16oz cut ( https://www.denverwater.org/tap/whats-beef-water ). But a demographic crises is coming. I was…
But where does the water go? It can't simply just vanish. It's a capacity problem, right? Also who cares who eats the beef? If you price in the water usage then these people eating all the beef will either keep eating and pay for their use or stop. Don't blame people for enjoying their life. It's akin to blaming people for using electricity when it is powered by coal...
Not back into aquifers, that takes hundreds if not thousands of years.
>Also who cares who eats the beef? If you price in the water usage
Ya, that's kinda the point, we don't. If we removed the massive subsidies propping up ranching very few people would be consuming beef.
>Don't blame people for enjoying their life
I don't think I did, but as you brought it up. I'll absolutely shame people for having disproportionate impacts on conservation of our natural resources. Boomers especially are leaving the planet a worse place than they inherited and I for one hope younger generations can reverse that trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of spent uranium that will need to stored is infinitesimally small compared to the amount of energy that is produced in contrast to the waste that is produced by any other non-renewable source. It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust - deeper than anything save for mining, encased in concrete, and buried over where it would be most unlikely that anything will touch it ever again.
>>> It will typically get buried deep in the earths crust IN the us, above ground, on site, in dry casks (Fukushima had this same issue too) There is no plan for where to put it. Yuca mountain is stalled and no way to finish (and problems with the site) https://www.nei.org/news/2019/what-happens-nuclear-waste-us Sweden got their shit together, but they dont have much in the way of power and their site has massive cos…
It wasn't an issue at Fukushima, it's not currently an issue in the US, and the reason Yucca Mountain isn't being developed is FUD and politics, not technical. Note that the vast majority of nuclear waste isn't high-level waste, but rather low-level - tools, clothes, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, we're looking at deaths till the point of generation. 4.5 billion years, is the half life of uranium. Come back to me with stats then.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster We're going to be pouring money into that shit show for probably a 1000 years, and an exclusion zone for 20,000. So if you want to move next to Fukushima or Chernobyl you can preach safe nuclear from there, other wise stop the…
iirc, I live near the largest nuke plant in the US. No complaints. Perhaps the issue is more with the people running the plants, then the plants themselves. Also, recycling nuke waste like many countries do cuts the amount of waste down dramatically. P.S. - we also use grey water for cooling the plant, limiting the amount of fresh water needed. Edit: According to 1, "All of the nuclear waste collected at Palo Verde o…
Solar last year: 228gw was ADDED globally.
SO about 57 plants of the size of the one near your house every year.
400 nuclear plants will give us about 2 major accidents every 50 years at current rate. We can assume this is pretty close to a constant as plants age, natural disasters happen and everything gets more complicated.
Meanwhile solar is not responsive and doesn't work after dar, so needs storage. In a pure nuclear set up, you still need storage, because it isnt responsive (you can't just crank them up and down like a dimmer) ... Nuclear, all nuclear, has the down side of needing local power. If you have to shut down in an emergency you need to keep shit running (this is what killed Fukushima in part)... so we either need on site generation or a more complex grid, and probably because of safety, both.
It's not a question of IF we have an accident but when, and more plants doesn't make them safer it just lowers the time between accidents...
We aren't building more nuclear for a good reason. I does not make ANY sense to do so, the cost and complexity is too high for too little power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iirc, I live near the largest nuke plant in the US. No complaints. Perhaps the issue is more with the people running the plants, then the plants themselves. Also, recycling nuke waste like many countries do cuts the amount of waste down dramatically. P.S. - we also use grey water for cooling the plant, limiting the amount of fresh water needed. Edit: According to 1, "All of the nuclear waste collected at Palo Verde o…
Lets round up its generate to 4gw Solar last year: 228gw was ADDED globally. SO about 57 plants of the size of the one near your house every year. 400 nuclear plants will give us about 2 major accidents every 50 years at current rate. We can assume this is pretty close to a constant as plants age, natural disasters happen and everything gets more complicated. Meanwhile solar is not responsive and doesn't work after d…
There may be good news on this front. Most of this water is being used to farm, specifically to grow feed crops for cattle. Anyone that can hearken back to elementary school will remember that you lose a lot of energy in the food chain. It takes an absolute shitton of water to get to a steak, 1800 gallons for one 16oz cut ( https://www.denverwater.org/tap/whats-beef-water ). But a demographic crises is coming. I was…
That is a positive trend, but a few good marketing campaigns can increase eating beef again.
It's not that simple.
Millennials don't eat meat in the same quantities as their parents did and that's not going to change any time soon. Also, this generation is basically allergic to typical marketing campaigns. They also get how eating meat is detrimental to the environment, something they care a lot about.
"Notable Millennial Food Trends: What Do They Like To Eat?" — https://dfaingredients.com/trends/millennial-food-trends/
With solar energy prices plummeting, it may make sense during peak production hours to use it to do desalination and/or extract water from the air, depending on where you are.
It's like trying to use a hammer to screw some bolts. The priority should be sustainable development. We have enough water, just not great usage. The water infrastructure we have today is aged and needs to expand to allow for the population growth the country has seen. On top of that, we are expanding cities in parts of the country where water is scarce. We are growing water intensive crops in parts of the country th…
They have ~2 million households[2], and a household uses an average of 3,000 g/m or 36,000 g/y/h or about 80 billion gallons / y for all households.
Huge coincidence, that's pretty close to balanced out.
And yet, we shuffle the rainfall to the ocean and pray for snowpack in the mountains and protest Nestle and Almond farmers.
1. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28%2812+inches+*+los+a...
2. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=households+in+los+angel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iirc, I live near the largest nuke plant in the US. No complaints. Perhaps the issue is more with the people running the plants, then the plants themselves. Also, recycling nuke waste like many countries do cuts the amount of waste down dramatically. P.S. - we also use grey water for cooling the plant, limiting the amount of fresh water needed. Edit: According to 1, "All of the nuclear waste collected at Palo Verde o…
Lets round up its generate to 4gw Solar last year: 228gw was ADDED globally. SO about 57 plants of the size of the one near your house every year. 400 nuclear plants will give us about 2 major accidents every 50 years at current rate. We can assume this is pretty close to a constant as plants age, natural disasters happen and everything gets more complicated. Meanwhile solar is not responsive and doesn't work after d…
Make no mistake, accidents (death and injury) in resource mining (non nuclear) greatly outweigh the total deaths and injuries due to just uranium mining | processing and nuclear power accidents.
Lithium for batteries has barely started compared to where it is headed and we already see waste storage issues (Lynas, Malaysia) for large volumes of acids and associated low level radioactive waste.
Again, I'm pro renewables, but as an exploration geophysict who has worked on global mining databases I can state as fact that these (as do all things) come at a cost - and accident free is not a reality.
You're making a purely emotive argument based on feels sans actual real world data.