• LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Ok a few points. First off, I’m a power engineer. You’re completely wrong about transmission losses. Those are (almost) completely proportional to current, which is (almost completely proportional to load. So if you reduce grid power consumption by 50% you will reduce transmission losses by 45% or more (allowing for corona losses and current to ground etc).

    Same thing with meat. It’s a supply and demand problem- the less demand for meat the less livestock, and proportionally less waste there. Livestock are expensive and people aren’t just going to raise them if they can’t sell them for a profit.

    Agriculture and livestock can be exported, true, but that’s the same situation as before just on a global scale. Less global demand for meat, fewer livestock, less water usage. It’s really that simple. There are no “super-users” of meat, the 1% might eat more than the average person but not 10x more.

    Municipal pipe leaks, sure, that does reduce the elasticity by up to half… with the caveat that in places that have serious water restrictions are much more vigilant because it really matters. Phoenix, AZ has a statutory limitation of 10% loss.

    My stat is just some back of the envelope math based on my above statements.

    As far as AI goes, it’s the same thing all over again. They (the AI companies) are offering a service to US, the consumer. We have the choice to not have AI generate pictures of snails wearing astronaut helmets. Actually AI is probably one of the things we need the least, relative to how much we use it.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      the less demand for meat the less livestock

      How do you explain the highest rate of beef demand in history running to with the lowest herd size in 20 years?

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The national cattle herd continues to hover at historically low numbers following bouts of drought across major beef-producing states, including back-to-back years of extreme drought across Texas. The national beef herd hit a 73-year low in January 2024 at 28.2 million head.

          Has nothing to do with consumption rates

          • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            So herd sizes reduced due to extreme drought, and beef prices spiked. However herd sizes are already growing again… to meet demand. If there wasn’t sufficient international demand for cattle the here size wouldn’t be growing. Supply will always try to track demand, under extreme circumstances you can get supply chain issues and prices will spike or there will be shortages. But long term, outside of these disruptions the number of beef cattle will be proportional to beef demand it’s just common sense.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              However herd sizes are already growing again

              Ranchers are attempting to replenish their herds. No word on whether they’ll succeed, given the ecological headwinds.

              In the meantime, the high price of beef creates a wide open market space for alternatives… assuming they can ramp up production to meet the lower income demand.