So we’ve come full circle, and you’ve admitted that nuclear fusion cannot generate calories. Great.
Sure it can’t, because it doesn’t exist. I said that outside some fantastical sci-fi technology like fusion directly producing hydrogen, sunlight will always be more efficient to produce calories. And you only need a radiation source for radiolysis, radioactive waste is only one source of it.
Every single method we have to produce chemical energy is less efficient than sunlight and plants.
Because solar panels, LEDs, hydrolysis, all have low efficiency. You loose massive amounts of energy and therefor space when your goal is to produce calories.
And sure we need vegetables and for that vertical farming is fine, great even, except for calories. But if we wanted to solve climate change, the infrastructure like solar panels and pumps contain a lot of embedded energy that you could save. It’s only profitable under capitalism and land hoarding and in a society where we consume way too much meat.
One economic collapse or global conflict and all our complex supply chains go away. So if we’re dependent on tractors and heavy machinery and fossil fuel and fertilizers, or on or robots and electronics or LEDs or solar panels just to produce food - the vast majority of people remain slaves to industry for their very basic needs.
The real solarpunk for me is potato farming. Or some sci-fi genetic engineering to produce shrubs that produce all sorts of food without needing tilling or fertilizer.
So much of what you’re saying is actually an argument in favor of warehouse farming and you don’t even realize it, that it’s obvious you’ve never read the requisite literature, and I’m done trying to explain this to you.
Sure it can’t, because it doesn’t exist. I said that outside some fantastical sci-fi technology like fusion directly producing hydrogen, sunlight will always be more efficient to produce calories. And you only need a radiation source for radiolysis, radioactive waste is only one source of it.
Every single method we have to produce chemical energy is less efficient than sunlight and plants.
Because solar panels, LEDs, hydrolysis, all have low efficiency. You loose massive amounts of energy and therefor space when your goal is to produce calories.
And sure we need vegetables and for that vertical farming is fine, great even, except for calories. But if we wanted to solve climate change, the infrastructure like solar panels and pumps contain a lot of embedded energy that you could save. It’s only profitable under capitalism and land hoarding and in a society where we consume way too much meat.
One economic collapse or global conflict and all our complex supply chains go away. So if we’re dependent on tractors and heavy machinery and fossil fuel and fertilizers, or on or robots and electronics or LEDs or solar panels just to produce food - the vast majority of people remain slaves to industry for their very basic needs.
The real solarpunk for me is potato farming. Or some sci-fi genetic engineering to produce shrubs that produce all sorts of food without needing tilling or fertilizer.
So much of what you’re saying is actually an argument in favor of warehouse farming and you don’t even realize it, that it’s obvious you’ve never read the requisite literature, and I’m done trying to explain this to you.