Are Tech Companies being carbon neutral? or corporate accounting trick

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

not in the scale needed to make the impact we're talking about.

how so?

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

There is not enough lithium to make the batteries required for either technology to replace current coal fired power.

As I said before, lithium isn't the only energy storage device available. And when I linked hydro, that wasn't to imply that was the only alternative. Would you like me to name some more? There are flywheels as an example of short term storage to deal with hour-to-hour changes, and there is hydrogen that can be produced using solar energy during times of the day where there is excess solar production, which would allow the hydrogen fuel to be used at night. There are many energy storage devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage#Methods No reason to limit your views to just lithium.

 

[Jtalk4456]

37 minutes ago, poochyena said:

how so?

How do you think it would be a viable quick replacement on the scale of our energy production. I LOVE solar and wind, I'm a giant fan (wind pun intended), but the output just isn't there where we can easily or quickly implement it on the scale of global or even local energy consumption needs. It can help for sure, but large scale solar farms just aren't up to the task of what we need, even assuming a better battery solution. Eventually with more research and getting the efficiency higher, I'm sure solar will become a major part of the energy solution, but for now, it's just not powerful enough. Wind, I'm not sure of the outputs, but it's area specific, so there's no use talking about it as a replacement for anything. It's merely a supplement in areas with lots of wind resource. Nuclear, yes it will take a few years to build the plant, but then it's up and running and providing MASSIVE energy production for the grid with very minimal waste in comparison to what it produces. And there's a few technologies up and coming that aim to do even better than current nuclear plants. Solar deserves to be part of the solution, but it's not a short term fix the government can just plop down and start running. Solar needs to be a part of public opinion where most new homes are built with solar to offset, and any needs beyond that are handled by nuclear

[poochyena]

9 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

large scale solar farms just aren't up to the task of what we need, even assuming a better battery solution.

I don't get what you mean by this. How is it not "up to the task"?

 

11 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Nuclear, yes it will take a few years to build the plant, but then it's up and running and providing MASSIVE energy production

...if they build a massive plant. Energy facilities produce exactly as much energy as you build them to produce. We would power the entire world with a single type of energy source if we really wanted to. It wouldn't be smart since each type has its pros and con and the best grid relies on a variety of different types of energy production, but the point is, a solar farm isn't any more powerful or less powerful than nuclear or any other type of energy production.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

how so?

As I said before, lithium isn't the only energy storage device available. And when I linked hydro, that wasn't to imply that was the only alternative. Would you like me to name some more? There are flywheels as an example of short term storage to deal with hour-to-hour changes, and there is hydrogen that can be produced using solar energy during times of the day where there is excess solar production, which would allow the hydrogen fuel to be used at night. There are many energy storage devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage#Methods No reason to limit your views to just lithium.

 

And as of right now, none of those are viable storage mediums for the requirements of most grids.  Honestly if they were they would be in use en masse right now,  but even the companies who make the most money out of wind and solar know that they are not good enough and it will only prove a burden on the system.  Lithium is by and far the best energy storage medium we currently have and it isn't viable solely due to materials availability.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, poochyena said:

I don't get what you mean by this. How is it not "up to the task"?

 

...if they build a massive plant. Energy facilities produce exactly as much energy as you build them to produce. We would power the entire world with a single type of energy source if we really wanted to. It wouldn't be smart since each type has its pros and con and the best grid relies on a variety of different types of energy production, but the point is, a solar farm isn't any more powerful or less powerful than nuclear or any other type of energy production.

So now you have taken the environment out of the debate.    The only way it is best to include dirty power is when the environment is not at risk. 

 

This is the biggest problem I have with climate activists and political propaganda,  The science is pretty solid at the moment and the truth really does seem to be inconvenient (if I can throw that back at al gore).

[WhitetailAni]

On 12/14/2021 at 8:09 PM, poochyena said:

Also the fact you wouldn't be driving in that weather either. I really don't get his point.

Heh. Yes you will. We don't get as much snow where I live, but every driving instructor I know of does snow driving lessons, because snow driving sucks.

- You can't see the lines as easily

- Ice can cause skids

- c o l d

"But why just not drive?"
The entire world isn't going to shut down because only part of it is snowed over. My dad had to drive to work when it was -30C (he left the company shortly thereafter as they asked him to commit tax fraud) as he didn't have any spare off days.

[Quackers101]

large solar can work, it's just an overall mess if you are going big scale.

You do have other solar power, but needs more fixing and research. same as with other wind tech in deliver power and also handling the massive powers.

 

As for smaller use, newer tech for solar or wind can help you to reduce from the grid?

At least solar looks and works better than big wind mills everywhere that needs room between each other. (but can be fine in some conditions).

[Jtalk4456]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

a solar farm isn't any more powerful or less powerful than nuclear or any other type of energy production.

https://ecotality.com/how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-us/#:~:text=About 7.86 billion solar panels,4000 billion kWh of electricity.

Quote

 

About 7.86 billion solar panels would be needed to power the U.S. on solar energy. This is derived from the fact that every year the U. S. consumes around 4000 billion kWh of electricity.

A megawatt of solar power plant requires about 5 acres of land. 2.75 TW, or 2,750,000 MW would require 13,750,000 acres.

 

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce

Quote

Nuclear energy has been powering the U.S. grid for the past 6 decades and produces around 1 gigawatt of power per plant on average.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all power plants are equal, but they are most certainly not. 

 

https://news.energysage.com/solar-farms-start-one/

Quote

The largest solar panel farm installed in the world is the Pavagada Solar Park, which was fully completed in 2019 in India. The 2,050 MW array can supply energy to hundreds of thousands of households.

That solar farm takes up 53 sq kilometers and produces (on a rough napkin math) about a 500th the power output and with a typical nuclear facility producing 1 gw taking up roughly 1 sq mile or 2.59 sq km (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate Fast Facts Guide-PRINT.pdf), we're talking a massive, MASSIVE difference in energy per sq km. These are absolutely not the same at all. That is just some basic math that I didn't even fully flesh out to see the full scale of how different they are. 

EDIT: my mind is frazzled today and I completely goofed by somehow putting gw as 1,000,000 mw instead of 1,000. Incorrect part scratched out, calculated below properly and we're still talking 10x difference. Definitely not as drastic as when I fudged the math by 1000, but to be clear this is still a significant difference for energy production and absolutely still disproves power plants being somehow equally powerful as one another. 

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

https://ecotality.com/how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-us/#:~:text=About 7.86 billion solar panels,4000 billion kWh of electricity.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all power plants are equal, but they are most certainly not. 

 

https://news.energysage.com/solar-farms-start-one/

That solar farm takes up 53 sq kilometers and produces (on a rough napkin math) about a 500th the power output and with a typical nuclear facility producing 1 gw taking up roughly 1 sq mile or 2.59 sq km (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate Fast Facts Guide-PRINT.pdf), we're talking a massive, MASSIVE difference in energy per sq km. These are absolutely not the same at all. That is just some basic math that I didn't even fully flesh out to see the full scale of how different they are. 

Not too mention that nearly everything in a nuclear plant can be recycled without too much hassle or extra energy expense.  compare that to trying to recycle solar or wind blades...

[Jtalk4456]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Not too mention that nearly everything in a nuclear plant can be recycled without too much hassle or extra energy expense.  compare that to trying to recycle solar or wind blades...

I'm not even gonna argue on that point because someone is gonna go on and on about nuclear waste. It's a problem, but in comparison to how much problem is solved, it's almost unimportant rn. But the main thing for me is the energy density. the sheer difference there. 

And I just realized I goofed a number, let me redo that. nuclear plant is 1000 mw per sq mile, solar is 2050 mw per 20.5 sq miles. ok so the difference isn't that massive, but it's still about 10x the power for the same amount of land.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, FakeKGB said:

Heh. Yes you will. We don't get as much snow where I live, but every driving instructor I know of does snow driving lessons, because snow driving sucks.

- You can't see the lines as easily

- Ice can cause skids

- c o l d

"But why just not drive?"
The entire world isn't going to shut down because only part of it is snowed over. My dad had to drive to work when it was -30C (he left the company shortly thereafter as they asked him to commit tax fraud) as he didn't have any spare off days.

Do you think my reply had more to do with the fact there was any snow at all, or more the fact that the car was literally buried under snow? I really want to hear your response.

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

https://ecotality.com/how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-us/#:~:text=About 7.86 billion solar panels,4000 billion kWh of electricity.

I'm not sure what part of that link is suppose to be relevant to my comment?

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce

I'm not sure what part of that link is suppose to be relevant to my comment?

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all power plants are equal, but they are most certainly not. 

If you look closely, you'll notice I never actually said "all power plants are equal".

1 hour ago, Jtalk4456 said:

we're talking a massive, MASSIVE difference in energy per sq km.

Of course Nuclear generates more power per sq km, i'd never argue against that. I don't don't see how that is relevant in America though, with VAST amounts of empty land. Though, I guess you could argue solar takes up 0 sq if you put them on roofs where they don't take away any useable space.

[WhitetailAni]

Just now, poochyena said:

Do you think my reply had more to do with the fact there was any snow at all, or more the fact that the car was literally buried under snow? I really want to hear your response.

The picture was provided as an example of a more heavy snowstorm, and in that case they're not going anywhere until a snowplow comes through, because once that's done the car just needs to be cleared off (an hour's work or so) and you're off.

In situations like this, which is typical where I live:
http://cdn7.dissolve.com/p/D112_1_432/D112_1_432_0004_600.jpg

(this is a random picture from the Internet, it's in Japan)

You're going to want to leave your car running so it's not freezing when you get inside. Sure, you won't be buried. But it's not going to be fun to drive while you freeze your butt off waiting for the car to warm up.

[poochyena]

10 minutes ago, FakeKGB said:

in that case they're not going anywhere until a snowplow comes through

So.. like I said.

[Jtalk4456]

3 minutes ago, poochyena said:

 

1. I'm not sure what part of that link is suppose to be relevant to my comment?

2. I'm not sure what part of that link is suppose to be relevant to my comment?

3. If you look closely, you'll notice I never actually said "all power plants are equal".

4. Of course Nuclear generates more power per sq km, i'd never argue against that.

5. I don't don't see how that is relevant in America though, with VAST amounts of empty land. Though, I guess you could argue solar takes up 0 sq if you put them on roofs where they don't take away any useable space.

1. Literally the sentence you quoted with it straight from the article

2. the article goes over power production, which was perfectly relevant to you saying none are more powerful than the other.

3. you said 

Quote

a solar farm isn't any more powerful or less powerful than nuclear or any other type of energy production.

In order for no one to be any more or less powerful than another, they would have to be equal in power. I'm not sure how else you could have meant that. It is provably false, which is why I included links showing sizes and power outputs of the two main plants we're mentioning. I also gave the benefit of the doubt by quoting numbers for the biggest solar farm in the world. 

4. Again, I'm not sure how else you meant what you said, it directly states what you said you'd never argue, but OK.

5. Because overpopulation is a thing, we need farmland and space for humanity. also because any powerplant of any variety, any building whatsoever taking up land, has an environmental impact to the land below. Also not all areas are suitable for large solar farms. Also because why would you intentionally focus on a energy source that takes up 10x the space? It's simply more logical to focus on efficiency.

As for rooftop like you mentioned, that's what I've mentioned several times as being the best use for solar. But that's not government creating large powerplants, that the individual focusing on reducing the amount of energy the city needs to create

[poochyena]

21 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

1. Literally the sentence you quoted with it straight from the article

2. the article goes over power production, which was perfectly relevant to you saying none are more powerful than the other.

The article doesn't go into which is more powerful though, it just talks about how many solar panels would be needed to power the US.

25 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

3. you said 

wow, look at that, a quote that does not include the words "power plants"

27 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

4. Again, I'm not sure how else you meant what you said, it directly states what you said you'd never argue, but OK.

You ever said anything about power production per sq km before that.

28 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

5. Because overpopulation is a thing

No its not.

28 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

we need farmland and space for humanity.

We already have that. Do you realize how much empty space there is in the US? Literally half the land in the US is used for meat production. Half. Cut out meat in your diet and we'd free up a huge amount of land for more space efficient foods, and it helps with carbon emissions too.

35 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

It's simply more logical to focus on efficiency.

Not land efficiency. There is no reason to care about that since power plants don't need to be build super close to cities. Just look at how many counties have fewer than 10 people per square miles https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-population-density-2020.jpg

[tikker]

7 hours ago, poochyena said:

The article doesn't go into which is more powerful though, it just talks about how many solar panels would be needed to power the US.

And as they point out that 1 reactor equates to roughly 3 million solar panels, you can conclude that nuclear is more "powerful", as it would require both less reactors and a smaller land area.

  

7 hours ago, poochyena said:

Not land efficiency. There is no reason to care about that since power plants don't need to be build super close to cities. Just look at how many counties have fewer than 10 people per square miles https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-population-density-2020.jpg

Besides having to build them,  there are ecological and climatological reasons to care about land efficiency. If you build massive solar farms you are arriving at the scales with which we start to mess with the climate due to their reflectivity and absorption. This is an active area of research, for example Lu et al. 2021:

Quote

Large-scale photovoltaic solar farms envisioned over the Sahara desert can meet the world's energy demand while increasing regional rainfall and vegetation cover. However, adverse remote effects resulting from atmospheric teleconnections could offset such regional benefits. We use state-of-the-art Earth-system model simulations to evaluate the global impacts of Sahara solar farms. Our results indicate a redistribution of precipitation causing Amazon droughts and forest degradation, and global surface temperature rise and sea-ice loss, particularly over the Arctic due to increased polarward heat transport, and northward expansion of deciduous forests in the Northern Hemisphere. We also identify reduced El Niño-Southern Oscillation and Atlantic Niño variability and enhanced tropical cyclone activity. Comparison to proxy inferences for a wetter and greener Sahara ∼6,000 years ago appears to substantiate these results. Understanding these responses within the Earth system provides insights into the site selection concerning any massive deployment of solar energy in the world's deserts.

While giant solar farms can meet our power demands, they could have unintended bad consequences.

[Jtalk4456]

On 12/15/2021 at 11:50 PM, poochyena said:

1. The article doesn't go into which is more powerful though, it just talks about how many solar panels would be needed to power the US.

2. wow, look at that, a quote that does not include the words "power plants"

3. You ever said anything about power production per sq km before that.

4. No its not.

5. We already have that. Do you realize how much empty space there is in the US? Literally half the land in the US is used for meat production. Half. Cut out meat in your diet and we'd free up a huge amount of land for more space efficient foods, and it helps with carbon emissions too.

6. Not land efficiency. There is no reason to care about that since power plants don't need to be build super close to cities. Just look at how many counties have fewer than 10 people per square miles https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/US-population-density-2020.jpg

1. So that article talked about solar panels power output, than another I quoted talked about nuclear power output. Then I used a skill called COMPARISON. If you take issue with basic comparison, I suggest not getting into debates of any kind...

2. Power production, you know, like from power plants... You're taking issue with very strange things that don't matter. But let me rephrase my response to illustrate literally the same exact point

In order for no power production type to be any more or less powerful than another, they would have to be equal in power output. I'm not sure how else you could have meant that. It is provably false, which is why I included links showing sizes and power outputs of the two main power productions we're mentioning. I illustrated the power output comparison of each power production type by looking at a power plant using that production and measured efficiency by dividing the output by the land needed to make each of these power production types work. I also gave the benefit of the doubt by quoting power production output numbers for the solar production plant with the highest power output in the world.

3. Before I mentioned raw numbers, now we're COMPARING, so we need different units to measure with to ensure equal grounds. You can make a terawatt of solar production and say it's more powerful than a gigawatt nuclear plant, but then that's not a fair comparison when that plant covers the entirety of massachusets, connecticut and rhode island assuming perfect conditions, which is near impossible for solar. a single nail hurts to step on, but a thousand nails distributing pressure into a large area hurts less. You need to introduce area in to have a fair measure of power, per standard science.

4. Science and facts would care to disagree with you... I hope at this point you're trolling and don't genuinely believe basic population measurements are somehow wrong...Luckily for humanity, the curve is starting to peak largely in part due to technology reducing connections, but we're already at a point where population has gotten big enough to make significant environmental impact to the earth. If you still want to doubt that science has somehow miscounted the population for decades or centuries, consider that every time we talk about environmental solutions, the topic turns to job loss. Because we've gotten to a point where we cannot reasonably have a sustainable society where everyone has a job. The sustainable measures take less people than the dirty industrial earth killing practices do. If we're not at a point of too many people, then why can't we do the right thing for the environment AND have jobs for everyone?

5. So you make the argument that cutting out meat to reduce land usage is a good thing, but when I say not cover the land with solar to reduce land usage, that's somehow unneeded? You can't have both. Fact is that any modern structure, building, anywhere on any ground is causing some environmental harm. On top of less habitat for the natural flora and animals, you've got non porous surfaces changing the water tables and causing erosion, among other effects. The less buildings of any kind, including solar, the better for the environment. Solar is providing shade, which is great for little old me who likes AC, but it really sucks for all the plants that like sunlight or all the animals that eat those plants. There is a lot of land in the US, but that doesn't make it good to cover it all with solar. The less land used, the better. That's just an indisputable fact. More trees better, less buildings better. Literally how nature works.

6. Besides all the points addressed above, if you build power production further from cities, guess what you have to do? Transport the power long distances. Instant loss in efficiency with power lost over distance. Closer is better, that's not something you can argue. Also let's remember to transport that power we have a bunch of large metal structures spanning the distance with a bunch of metal cables surrounded by chemically produced sheathing. All of this is mining and chemical production that's extremely harmful to the environment. Just because there's towns with low population density doesn't make it somehow smart to put the power plant 100 miles away for no reason. You're argument there makes no sense and doesn't even connect to what you're trying to make a point about.

 

[thrasher_565]

On 12/15/2021 at 7:21 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

I'm not even gonna argue on that point because someone is gonna go on and on about nuclear waste. It's a problem, but in comparison to how much problem is solved, it's almost unimportant rn. But the main thing for me is the energy density. the sheer difference there. 

And I just realized I goofed a number, let me redo that. nuclear plant is 1000 mw per sq mile, solar is 2050 mw per 20.5 sq miles. ok so the difference isn't that massive, but it's still about 10x the power for the same amount of land.

but that's to power what we use now witch is alot... i mean its posable to make almost everything off grid. but some one some were will want to make moeny so its never gonna happen. i mean one day you pay for air...

 

there is so SO much options. but everything we do now is all based of making moeny the "American"" way.

 

you can literally take dirt and a car tire and make a foundation. and bottles for the walls. free heat.

 

there are modren off grid buildings they just are not built in America for w/e reason...

 

the key word is how can we keep the consumer model and make power...well making moeny.

 

[Talamakara]

On 12/15/2021 at 9:50 PM, poochyena said:

 

We already have that. Do you realize how much empty space there is in the US? Literally half the land in the US is used for meat production. Half. Cut out meat in your diet and we'd free up a huge amount of land for more space efficient foods, and it helps with carbon emissions too.

 

 

 

"Literally half the land in the US is used for meat production." "space efficient foods, and it helps with carbon emissions too"

1) The city of new york uses 11,000 Megawatt hours of power per day. The largest solar plants in the US are two sites with a total combined power draw of 579 megawatt a day. (Largest US Solar Plants) The solar farm for this is 13 square kilometers or roughly 4 central parks. Just using simple math to power new york completely by solar.
11000/579 = 18.99 - meaning you would need 19 solar farms to power new york
13*19 = 247 - you would need 247 square kilometers of solar panels to power new york while the sun was up.
New york covers an area of 486 square kilometers. You would need a solar farm the size of Dever Colorado to power new york during the day. That is not efficient. You also have to take in that we can't get over the Shockley Quiesser Limit yet, this means every solar panel has a max efficiency rating of 33.6%. So after making solar panels which destroy the earth to make, making lithium ion batteries which again destroys the earth to make, the use of solar panels is absolutely inefficient at this point. I think the best idea was the one where I said we start putting panels on peoples homes, for free or through some government subsidized program. This would at least allow for power to be put back into the grid and the panels are the less of the evils between panels and batteries.

2) Building panels in places like mountains and deserts where nothing can grow is one thing, but there are places like this and this where they are building solar panels right usable farm land, and they aren't twenty feet of the ground they aren't even two feet. This is a waste of farm land.Yes there are some where the panels are higher, but you still can't really grow much beneath them.(Much being relative to growing farms full of produce)

3) Please tell me you don't honestly believe cattle farms are actually damaging the environment? We've been cattle farming for over ten thousand years and even if it did, we as human being need meat to eat. So the reality is, if you kill off our food sources you kill off us.  And in reality fake meat is actually far less healthy for you than real meat. Whats in fake meat and what it can do to you. Original Source And in MY Personal Opinion the beyond meat tastes like cardboard crap, a macdonalds burger tastes better and i know it's mostly junk, no one is advertising it to be a healthy alternative. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Talamakara]

On 12/15/2021 at 8:51 PM, poochyena said:

Do you think my reply had more to do with the fact there was any snow at all, or more the fact that the car was literally buried under snow? I really want to hear your response.

 

 

We drive in this on a regular basis

This was my family farm a few years ago. This kind of snow is not uncommon, and digging ourselves out is not uncommon. What makes this even more interesting was I took the picture at 9am, when i came home at 2am it was barely snowing. When i got to the city a few hours later there were buses buried in snowbanks, and the trains were down as well. You can not use public transportation even in a city as the only means of transportation. I also don't think anyone who says to use public transit has ever stood on a train platform when it's been -35 and the wind chill was pushing it down into the -40s or colder.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

On 12/16/2021 at 2:21 PM, Jtalk4456 said:

I'm not even gonna argue on that point because someone is gonna go on and on about nuclear waste. It's a problem, but in comparison to how much problem is solved, it's almost unimportant rn. But the main thing for me is the energy density. the sheer difference there. 

And I just realized I goofed a number, let me redo that. nuclear plant is 1000 mw per sq mile, solar is 2050 mw per 20.5 sq miles. ok so the difference isn't that massive, but it's still about 10x the power for the same amount of land.

Nuclear waste is not as voluminous as lobbyists will have everyone believe, and it's already almost 99% reusable at that.  We don;t even need a break through in nuclear tech to reduce wast to practically 0.

On 12/16/2021 at 3:50 PM, poochyena said:

We already have that. Do you realize how much empty space there is in the US? Literally half the land in the US is used for meat production. Half. Cut out meat in your diet and we'd free up a huge amount of land for more space efficient foods, and it helps with carbon emissions too.

 

 

I'm all in favor of cutting meat out of the diet, but you do realize if everyone was to do that then the space used for meat would be needed for plant based food farming?

 

So in effect there is no empty space in the US, it is either required for food or it is required to stay Forrest so we can at least minimize the environmental impact we already have with deforestation.

 

There really is just no other way to breakdown the figures,  solar farms on a massive scale are just not as environmentally friendly as nuclear, not as efficient as nuclear and definitely not as reliable as nuclear.

 

 

[tikker]

4 hours ago, Talamakara said:

3) Please tell me you don't honestly believe cattle farms are actually damaging the environment? We've been cattle farming for over ten thousand years and even if it did, we as human being need meat to eat. So the reality is, if you kill off our food sources you kill off us.  And in reality fake meat is actually far less healthy for you than real meat. Whats in fake meat and what it can do to you. Original Source And in MY Personal Opinion the beyond meat tastes like cardboard crap, a macdonalds burger tastes better and i know it's mostly junk, no one is advertising it to be a healthy alternative. 

Our farming 10,000 years ago was on significantly smaller scales than what we are doing now and not comparable. Meat is great because of its energy density. There are a lot of calories in small amounts and it's a decent resource for e.g. protein. In our current situation we are no longer surviving till the next day though and have the opportunity to get our nutrients from other sources. We can be perfectly fine with less meat consumption.

 

I tend to agree that the alternatives don't taste too great, which is why in my opinion you should explore proper alternatives and not necessarily try to replace it with the same-but-not-the-same. There are delicious vegetarian or even vegan dishes. Just don't go in expecting that a portobello burger will taste exactly like a beef burger. It doesn't, it shouldn't. They're both good. McDonalds' (and other chains') sad excuses for burgers are part of the problem. Put in a bit more effort, make a bit less profit and serve people an actually decent burger. People should suck it up that food costs money and pay $5 for an actually decent one instead of wolfing down 5 $1 shitty ones. Apparently, if people would adhere to the WHO recommendations for their diet, their emissions would drop 17% [Green et al. 2015]. Now that will of course be hard to enforce / monitor, but that shows the power of simple moderation. We don't have to eliminate, at least not immediately. Simply reducing or balancing consumption already has an impact.

 

That "Amy Myers MD" website is obviously trying to sell their supplements and books, so I'm going to take it with a big dose of sceptiscism. Being a wife, mother and best-selling author doesn't mean anything and feeling the need to put that as "credentials" lowers the bar for me. Some of their points are sound, like the ones about meat having nutrients, lean meat addressing part of the fat issue and the high amount of sodium in off-the-shelve products, and some point to more legitimate looking research, but others about gluten-free diets solving things like MS-like diseases (from her who-am-I video) and legumes being bad because people sensitive to those react strongly to them (that's called common sense) is just... questionable.

 

Claiming GMOs are bad is just ignorant fearmongering on her part and it should not be treated as a single bad category. We've literally been doing this crudely since we've been cultivating crops. Everything you eat that people claim is "natural" is the result of decades of carefully planned genetic modification to keep wanted traits and suppress unwanted traits, lab or not. You cultivate a field of corn, one is genetically different, resulting in bigger kernels or the larger cobs, which you then propagate as a desirable quantity. It's good that it is controlled and that there is oversight, but something from a lab is not inherently bad. A chemical or mutation created synthetically is no different from the exact same one at some point occuring by chance in nature. If I imbue corn with orange flavour it's harmless, if I make corn plants that contain a deadly neurotoxin not so much. Both are GMOs.

 

[Quackers101]

6 hours ago, tikker said:

Our farming 10,000 years ago was on significantly smaller scales than what we are doing now and not comparable. Meat is great because of its energy density. There are a lot of calories in small amounts and it's a decent resource for e.g. protein. In our current situation we are no longer surviving till the next day though and have the opportunity to get our nutrients from other sources. We can be perfectly fine with less meat consumption.

We also eat more meaty products today or junk food, when we could overall reduce such waste and meat consumption over more simple produce.

Nothing wrong in eating meat, but we all could in some ways eat less. I do agree that some farming and meat production should be 100% okey and sometimes use land that no green food would grow besides grass or mud or rock. However more shady practices and areas that do exploit animals, turning meat to become dangerous, and is less of a benefit for everyone else, to destroying forest areas like in poorer countries around the rainforests.

 

But not every country is like that or has or wants to enable that kind of meat production. if it's factory, cage or similar.

6 hours ago, tikker said:

I tend to agree that the alternatives don't taste too great, which is why in my opinion you should explore proper alternatives and not necessarily try to replace it with the same-but-not-the-same. There are delicious vegetarian or even vegan dishes. Just don't go in expecting that a portobello burger will taste exactly like a beef burger.

Depends on who produces the products, and sadly a lot of the good ones are a bit junk food as well. Unless you make a more real vegan meal than some fake products. or just less of the fake ingredients.

6 hours ago, tikker said:

Claiming GMOs are bad is just ignorant fearmongering on her part and it should not be treated as a single bad category.

GMO fearmongering is taking away the real issues behind GMO. Like yes, GMO can become dangerous, if there is no control or research behind doing what they do and it might not be towards humans. But there is a lot more good that can come out of GMO also to what degree one can call something GMO? when most things are in some ways "GMO" even the stuff those who fearmongering tries to say is "not GMO" products.

[Jtalk4456]

18 hours ago, Talamakara said:

Please tell me you don't honestly believe cattle farms are actually damaging the environment? We've been cattle farming for over ten thousand years and even if it did, we as human being need meat to eat. So the reality is, if you kill off our food sources you kill off us.  And in reality fake meat is actually far less healthy for you than real meat. Whats in fake meat and what it can do to you. Original Source And in MY Personal Opinion the beyond meat tastes like cardboard crap, a macdonalds burger tastes better and i know it's mostly junk, no one is advertising it to be a healthy alternative.

I was with you until this point. Industrial meat farming is absolutely harming the environment. That is not a belief, it's a fact. Also humans don't have to have meat, Vegans exist. I wouldn't go fully vegan as I enjoy meat too much, but I am certainly reducing my intake where I can and adding more veggies, which are better for me anyways.