Submitted by paulfdietz t3_10i5km1 in technology
TheRealEvanG t1_j5ldk5d wrote
Reply to comment by paulfdietz in Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor by paulfdietz
You're just making the false equivalency worse. Borderline strawman territory.
paulfdietz OP t1_j5lee3x wrote
I'm disagreeing that the equivalency is false.
I want you to explain how one can consider eating beef to be in any way different from using the land to instead make energy for industrial society. Why the inequivalence? Why is beef production somehow morally privileged? Justify, don't just assert.
TheRealEvanG t1_j5lohnl wrote
What is the more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce and equivalent amount of beef at the equovalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land?
Additionally, how many new agricultural projects are slated to begin on protected land?
You're the one claiming they're the same thing. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how your equivalency is not false.
EDIT: Your equivalency is false because it's founded on the basis that I'm claiming electricity is a superfluous luxury, which I've never claimed.
paulfdietz OP t1_j5mbw57 wrote
> What is the more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce and equivalent amount of beef at the equovalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land?
Animal feed can be made from microorganisms grown on synthetic chemicals. This was done half a century ago:
The methanol there was made from natural gas, but it could be equally made from CO2 reacted with hydrogen produced by electrolysis.
> Additionally, how many new agricultural projects are slated to begin on protected land?
That's not the point. How much land could go back to wilderness if we weren't growing food on it? You are arbitrarily ruling out the value of land converted back to wilderness in this fashion, privileging food production on existing land for no reason other than inertia.
But suppose we go along with that, and just stick with existing farmland and consider it usable for any purpose just because we're already using it. Converting some of that farmland to PV collectors, and then allowing beef to become a bit more expensive (perhaps making some synthetic feed to compensate), would be a profitable thing to do -- the value of energy from PV on former agricultural land would be at least an order of magnitude higher than the value of the animal feed produced on that land. Would you object to this? If so, why?
> You're the one claiming they're the same thing.
In economic analysis, we can trade X off against Y. The tradeoff is based on the economic value of the activities. If land in a wild state has value, it has value regardless of whether we were considering to use that land for farming or for solar energy collection (or for any other use.)
The central point here is that farming doesn't deliver all that much value per acre. Why are you so hung up on preserving this, but objecting to the far more lucrative use of that land for PV? Your position is hypocritical.
TheRealEvanG t1_j5mjv2e wrote
> That's not the point.
That is the point. That's my point. It's irrelevant whether it's your point or not because we're not arguing about your point. We're arguing about my point.
I didn't say anything about land converted back to wild land. I said protected wild land shouldn't be being converted in the first place.
> It has value whether we are considering to use that land for farming or for solar energy collection.
So...you're saying that what you just claimed isn't the point actually is the point. I'm not saying it's okay to put agricultural land on protected woodlands, but not solar farms, and I'm not saying that no land anywhere should be used for energy generation. I'm saying that protected lands shouldn't be being released from their protected status so they can be razed for solar farms when there are perfectly viable alternatives. Feel free to re-read what I said if you think that wasn't my point (although I stated it explicitly by saying I don't care if you want to build a 10 mi^2 solar farm in the mojave.)
You're trying to discredit my position by equating lands already in agricultural use with protected wetlands and woodlands. It is both a false equivalency and a strawman.
You keep trying to use economics to manipulate my opinion, but my point was never an economic point to begin with. My point is an environmental point. The environment should be preserved when it can reasonably be preserved, even if it's not the most economically viable option.
If there is a more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce the equivalent amount of beef at the equivalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land that also requires the conversion of less wild land than conventional agricultural techniques, then I'll advocate fully for its use, provided that it's not being carried out on otherwise protected land.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments