[mean mr.mustard]

They can spend all that money dag... we can't... we just make it for them.

If we could even use what they say we use...

[40AmpstoFreedom]

Well, I think we should make cannabis even more illegal now so that 5 billion $ in revenue the energy companies make and hire employees with will not be had anymore thereby screwing two areas of commerce at once, agriculture and energy!

Seems they want us all working as over taxed slaves to the states, on welfare, or in prison. Whatever benefits the government...in this case all three.

[whodare]

guys we gotta quit smoking, good thing i vape...

all that abv (or already been vaped) weed is a great carbon sequestering tool.



lol

ONE LOVE

[Rednick]

No mention of all the savings on vehicle emissions from these 'work-at-home' growers.

[Mountain High]

Legalize then we can throw the lights in the trash and go back to growing plants outdoors, the way they should be done. Those numbers look like bullshit to me.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Weird

How much electricity on the infrastructure to support social media like text messaging and face book? same with tv advertisement?

Dunno Man but one Google search uses as much electricity as it takes to boil 3 litres of water

[pearlemae]

Those statements imply that the author has an exact count of how many people and how many lights are running in the entire country? What a load of crap!! talk about a lack of facts, the NY Times sucks anyway.

[FunkBomb]

Those numbers from his mouth are like shit from ass. In 3 gallon containers, during the height of flowering, my plants never took in more than 3 gallons of water a WEEK. He also failed to mention the fact that plants take in carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. His data has flaws just like the shitty UN.

-Funk

[geopolitical]

Link to the actual study.

https://evan-mills.com/energy-associa...energy-use.pdf


If anyone had bothered to actually READ the study you'd notice that he is using a crazy high output sealed room/co2/etc setup as his "typical model". Now 200w/sqft for TOTAL energy use seems excessive even for that but I'm sure he could pull one out of his ass that would use that much. 500x refers to "above the light level recommended for reading". He's talking about intensity, not wattage. 500x seems a bit much but I honestly don't know what a "useful" light level for reading would be. 100 lumens? maybe more/less? It's totally weasel terminology on his part, but it's misquoted in the story so there you go.

3rd page of the study has some neat pie charts and his figures. You can argue with them as you like, I'm sure everyone's grow is going to be different, and I seriously doubt a nobel winner is going to set up his room the same as me.

This being said the main points are still valid. High intensity indoor production produces a LOT of co2, as it should without the sun being involved. I'd agree with mountain air there, sunshine is the way to go if you can. Just from the perspective of cost, sunshine & air movement is free outside

[geopolitical]

Originally Posted by Weird

yeah ok indoor plants are using 3-5 gallons a day

That's total water consumed by the energy used, not for the plant itself. Large scale energy generation consumes a LOT of water, in fact your biggest water usage is one you're probably fairly ignorant of as it occurs at the power plant. Gas, coal & nuclear all use large amounts of water for both cooling & motive power.

His estimated figure for indoor water consumption is 1/gallon/plant/day which seems pretty high but not insane from my experience with larger plants.