VeganPizza69 ⓋNew research shows renewables are more profitable than nuclear power
CrimeDadEveryone seems to be focused on electricity production, but ammonia production (ie nitrogen fixation) for fertilizer is often overlooked. Right now it is accomplished mostly with natural gas. If we’re supposed to do it instead with with and solar, we’re going to have to rely on simple and inefficient electrolysis of water to generate the hydrogen needed for the Haber process. Nuclear power plants have the advange of producing very high temperature steam, which allows for high temperature electrolysis, which is more efficient.
When you consider our fertilizer needs, it becomes clearer that nuclear power will have to play the predominant role in the transition away from fossil fuels.
schroedingershatNo on all fronts.
The only reactor designs with any sort of history don’t produce steam at high enough temperature for the haber process.
The steam they do produce costs more per kWh thermal than a kWh electric so is more economic to produce with a resistor.
Mirrors exist. Point one at a rock somewhere sunny and you have a source of high temperature heat.
Direct nitrogen electrolysis is better than all these options.
Using fertilizer at all has a huge emissions footprint (much bigger than producing it). The correct path here is regenerative agriculture, precision fermentation and reducing the amount of farmland needed by stopping beef.
One way or another, I’m pretty sure that we need fertilizer. What is the source of GHG if the fertilizer is produced without natural gas or other fossil fuels?
NO2, methane from byproduct/digestion, soil carbon release from land overuse. Downstream methane release due to nitrate pollution.
The overwhelming majority of cropland is for “biofuel”, industrial chemicals and animal feed.
Industrial scale regenerative agriculture has lower yields in the short term, but doesn’t emit NO2 and leave behind a dust bowl (requiring clearing a new forest).
Eating crops directly rather than feeding cows is far more effective than changing fertilizer source. Eating organic crops uses a small fraction of the crop land that eating beef fed on intensively grown corn does.
Biointensive methods have many times the yield as industrial agriculture but are very labour intensive – automating them would save a lot more emissions.
Precision fermentation uses a tiny fraction of the land per unit of protein/nutrients.
Eating crops directly rather than feeding cows is far more effective than changing fertilizer source.
cows eat a lot of grass, and usually from land that isn’t suitable for crops. the silage they get is mostly parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat.
Paltering.
Corn and soy grown for the purpose of large animal feed exceeds the amount of cropland used directly for human consumption in areas where <20% of calories and protein come from red meat.
almost all soy (about 85%) is crushed for oil for human use. the vast majority of what’s fed to animals is the industrial waste from that process.
only 7% is fed directly to animals.
i don’t know the numbers for corn, but i do know that globally, about 2/3 of all crop calories go to people.
calling me a shill doesn’t change the fact that 85% of all soy is crushed for oil
USDA ERS - Major Factors Affecting Global Soybean and Products Trade Projections
Global soybean and products trade is projected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years according to <em>USDA Agricultural Projections to 2025</em>. The primary factors driving this increase include population and income growth, which are behind the rising world demand for livestock products, as well as policies implemented by major agricultural importers and exporters.
The oil is the byproduct, idiot.
While some of the crop is used directly, more than 85 percent is further processed through crushing into soybean meal and oil. Soybean meal is typically used as an animal feed for its protein content
The meal is the main revenue source and the reason it’s grown.
meal is the majority of the weight of the soybean, but oil is about half the value of the soybean while only being 20% of the weight. they don’t process soybeans in meal presses: it’s processed in oil presses.
Wow. What an insightful comment.
Fuck off shill.
it speaks to what i’ve been saying this whole time, and your insult and derision does nothing to undermine the facts.
your inability to communicate without namecalling says a lot more about you than it does about what i’m saying.
Reactionary shills are always so fragile.
I’m quite capable of communicating without namecalling. But when I see a shill shilling, I point out the shilling.
this is just more namecalling.
HEY YOUR SOYBEAN FACT SHEET REFLECTS THE GLOBAL NUMBERS REALLY CLOSELY!
So almost all of it going to animal feed is somehow all of it being for human consumption?
Fuck off and stop trying to gaslight, shill.
what is fed to animals is the industrial waste from the oil processing. which is the comment i made that started your namecalling. i will accept an apology, but i will not tolerate any more insults.
iowafarmbureau.com/…/Relative-Value-of-Soybean-Me…
Most of the revenue is the meal. Nobody would grow it for the oil.
Almost half of the oil is used for biodeisel. So even if it were exclusively for the oil (a lie) getting rid of 40% and getting rid of the meat would do more than green fertizer
Also all an attempt at distraction because humans could eat a plant grown there.
Relative Value of Soybean Meal and Soybean Oil
The soybean crush produces two major products, soybean meal and soybean oil. Historically, approximately 2/3 of the total value of soybean crush products came from soybean meal and the remaining 1/3 came from soybean oil. Recently, the relative value of each product has become more balanced, with approximately ½ of the total value of the crush coming from each product.
i think it’s great that you cited a source that shows even as markets fluctuate over time, soybean oil punches far above its weight every year in the value of the crop.
i never even suggested it is grown exclusively for oil.
humans DO eat the plants grown there.
according to the fao, only 1/5 to 1/4 of the oil goes to industrial uses.
it’s crazy how much i’ve learned about soybeans, and never bothered to look into the numbers on corn. you’ll forgive me if i look for my own sources though.
almost no soy goes to cattle at all. calling me “paltering” while jumping from one segment of agriculture to another is just hypocritical rhetoric. try addressing the topic instead of characterizing me.
I said red meat. Pork and chicken need to go too, but that’snot as urgent.
lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/2542095
i didn’t see any allusion to any animal except cattle here. am i reading too quickly?
I didn’t want to get into an argument with an imbecile about eggs. But here we are.
your insults don’t change the text.
Fuck off shill. All of your lies have been dealt with already.
Now is the part where you shit on the board and declare victory.
none of your insults have disproven what i said, and all the sources you’ve cited support what i’ve been saying.
your posturing doesn’t help your case. humbly accepting that you didn’t know all the facts about soy (just as i am still learning about corn) would do wonders for your perception though.