The German party in power are very upset about this approach since they shut down their nuclear program.I agree about the nuclear. Better have some space (a cubic mile) off limits for a long time than polluting the whole atmosphere a little.
I read the EU is proposing to invest 500 billion euros in new nuclear plants (to try to reach their self imposed CO2 targets).
The German party in power are very upset about this approach since they shut down their nuclear program.
Let's not forget fusion.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems we've seen some significant progress with it lately.
I'm a little surprised by the ruminant angle above; it is quite well known that the energy losses to produce meat (using warm-blooded animals) are humongous. Wheat gives quite more calories per acre than beef... (i.e. comparing human-intake calories per acre).
Yes, ruminants can convert useless (to us) grass and clover etc into useful (to us) calories. But saying it's more efficient per acre is, I believe, not true, when measured in human-consumable calories per acre?
(And no, I'm certainly not a vegetarian...)
I googled "calories per acre beef", and don't know the background of this website (pushing an agenda or not) - but the table here is consistent in what I've read before. I can't vouch for the accuracy of these numbers (at this time - and I'm unlikely to try to find out; see earlier notion elsewhere about confirmation bias...).
View attachment 289529Calories per acre for various foods
we could feed many more people with the same amount of land if we all became vegetarians, but only if we stuck to potatoes and corn.www.waldeneffect.org
People like to talk about how few decades there were between Kitty Hawk and commercial aviation, or for that matter, the moon landing.Let's not forget fusion.
Maybe I'm overly optimistic but it seems we've seen some significant progress with it lately.
"Plant based meats" are not necessarily better. They are loaded with sodium, fat, and cholesterol, and not the good kinds that you find in actual meat. They are junk food plain and simple, much like many other "plant based" foods like donuts.
You are right, I meant saturated fat, not cholesterol. Thanks.I'd agree that current plant based meats aren't necessarily better but you ought to check your self on the cholesterol claim. Perhaps you meant saturated fat?
It is tasty. I don't know if I've had the "impossible" brand, but I've gotten "Field Burgers" from the local grocery store several times. I also can't see it being as energy efficient as raising meat animals with "holistic" environmental practices. For the animal I just raise it and eat it, very minimal processing involved in cooking the meat. For plant based meat alternatives you have to do a whole lot more to the plants that are otherwise edible as they are from the ground. There's definitely a lot of carbon and habitat destruction involved in monoculture factory farms growing crops and then transporting them to a processing facility, and then transporting those processed foods to stores, and then to transport again to your home.I agree that plant based meats are not 'healthy', or even healthier as a substitute for ground beef. The fat is coconut oil with a similar saturated fat content as beef.
I use it as a component of a 'flexitarian' or 'climatarian' diet which does not include a lot of meat (plant based or otherwise).
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.