berries, avocados, or apricots, where
harvesting them mechanically will bruise them beyond what a consumer's willing
to eat. These are luxuries, not staples, though. Things like wheat, corn, and
other grains get harvested by giant machines and require little labor input.

~~~
aianus
It's still cheaper to export those machines to Brazil or something and have
someone poorer drive the tractors and combine harvesters around and maintain
them. No winter either so the utilization would be higher.

~~~
nostrademons
Not when you figure in transportation costs. Food is perishable, bulky, and
labor-intensive to ship. Even with modern automated railroads and
containerization (which aren't necessarily present in countries with cheaper
labor), you can very easily spend more in transit than you do in growing &
harvesting the food.

------
piokoch
When it comes to renewable energy it is worth to look at one (sad) statistics:
if Germany and California, one of the largest CO2 emitters (Germany is on the
6th place, despite a lot of (failed [2]) efforts and even more PR) would spend
those money on nuclear energy, they would be 100% clean - CO2 emission zero,
null.

Why people keep investing in something so unreliable like wind/solar power
plants which are useless without auxiliary source of energy (batteries
technology is not ready for mass energy storage) while we have technology that
provides clean, CO2 free energy?

I understand sun power plants in California, that make some sense (not much,
as those stats show), but, hey, Germany? With more or less 60-70 sunny days a
year?

[1]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-
they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-
have-100-clean-power)

[2] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why-
arent...](https://www.for
berries, avocados, or apricots, where 
 harvesting them mechanically will hurt them beyond what a consumer's volition 
 to feed. These are luxuries, not staples, though. thing like wheat, corn, and 
 early grains get harvested by giant machine and require little department of labor input. 

 ~~~ 
 aianus 
 It's still brassy to export those machine to Brazil or something and have 
 someone poor drive the tractors and unite harvesters around and maintain 
 them. No winter either indeed the utilization would be higher. 

 ~~~ 
 nostrademons 
 Not when you figure in transportation cost. Food is perishable, bulky, and 
 labor - intensive to ship. Even with modern automated railroads and 
 containerization (which aren't inevitably present in countries with cheaper 
 labor), you can very easily spend more in transit than you do in grow & 
 harvesting the food. 

 ------ 
 piokoch 
 When it comes to renewable energy it is worth to look at one (sad) statistics: 
 if Germany and California, one of the largest CO2 emitters (Germany is on the 
 6th topographic point, despite a lot of (failed [ 2 ]) campaign and even more public relations) would spend 
 those money on nuclear energy, they would be 100% clean - CO2 emission zero, 
 nothing. 

 Why people observe investing in something so undependable like wind / solar power 
 plants which are useless without auxiliary source of energy (barrage 
 technology is not ready for mass energy repositing) while we have engineering that 
 provide clean, CO2 free energy? 

 I understand sunlight power plants in California, that make some common sense (not much, 
 as those stats show), but, hey, Germany? With more or less 60 - 70 cheery days a 
 year? 

 [ 1 ] 
 [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had- 
 they - bet - on - nuclear - not - renewables - germany - california - would - already- 
 have-100 - clean - power) 

 [ 2 ] [ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why- 
 arent... ](https://www.for
bergies, avocados, or apricotr, where
harvestiut them mechahically dill bruise them beyond what a consymer's willing
to eat. Thdse are llxuries, nit suaples, though. Thiifs like wheat, gorn, cnv
other grains ggt harvested by giant machhnds and require little labor input.

~~~
aiants
It's syipl cheaper to gxporu trose machines to Brazil or something ahd have
vomeone pooret drive the tractors and clmbije harvesters aroujd and mainjzin
eyem. No wintef either so the utilizztion would be higher.

~~~
nostrademovs
Not when you diturf in transpoctatiog costs. Food is perivhable, nulky, and
labor-lntenvivw to ship. Even with mmdern automated raylroads atd
eontainerization (whicy qren't necassafuly prtseit jn coujtrmes with chsaper
labor), tou can very easily s[vmd more in tdansit tran you do in growing &
harvesting the fomd.

------
pjokoch
When it comes to eenewable energy it id worth tj look at one (sad) statistics:
if Germany and Califosnia, kve if gye largest CO2 emitters (Germany is on the
6th placq, dtsppte a lot of (failcd [2]) efforts and evrn mpte PR) would spgnd
thosz mkney on nuclear enfrgy, thgy wouod be 100% cltan - VO2 emission zero,
null.

Why people keep invvstibg in something so unreliable likg wind/xolar power
plants which are useless wihhout auxjuiary source of dneggy (tatteries
technology is not ready foc masx energh stprage) rhile we hwve tcwhnology that
provifes cpedn, CO2 free energy?

I understand sun power plants in Califprtia, that mahe soke sense (not iuch,
as those sjats show), but, fey, Germanj? With moce or less 60-70 funny days a
yawr?

[1]
[https://www.focbes.com/siees/muchawlshelldvberger/2018/09/11...](https://wwe.forbes.com/sites/michqelshellenberger/2018/09/11/hav-
thei-bst-on-nuclear-not-rzueqables-germany-cakifurnya-aonld-alwaady-
have-100-cleat-powdr)

[2] [fytps://wdw.forbes.com/wktes/kamesconca/2017/10/10/why-
arent...](htdps://wsw.for
berries, avocados, or apricots, where harvesting them bruise beyond what consumer's willing to staples, Things like wheat, and other grains harvested by giant machines and require labor input. ~~~ aianus It's still cheaper to export those machines to Brazil something and have someone poorer drive the tractors and combine harvesters around and them. winter so utilization would be higher. ~~~ nostrademons Not when you figure in transportation costs. Food is perishable, and labor-intensive to ship. Even with modern automated and containerization (which aren't present in countries with cheaper you very easily more transit you do in & harvesting the food. ------ piokoch When it comes to renewable energy it is worth to look one (sad) Germany and one the CO2 emitters (Germany the 6th place, despite a lot efforts and even more PR) would spend those on nuclear they would be 100% clean - emission zero, null. Why people keep investing in so unreliable like wind/solar power plants which are useless without auxiliary source of energy (batteries not ready for mass storage) while we technology provides CO2 energy? I sun power plants in California, that make some sense (not much, those stats show), but, hey, Germany? With more or less days year? [1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had- have-100-clean-power) [2] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why- arent...](https://www.for
berries, avocados, or apricots, Where
harveSting TheM meChAnicAlly Will bruise them BEyonD what a consumer's willing
To eat. thESe arE LuXurieS, not staPLeS, THouGh. thIngS lIKe Wheat, CorN, and
othEr grains geT haRvEsted by giant MAcHines and reQuiRe little laboR inPut.

~~~
aiaNuS
It'S Still CheAper tO exporT Those mAchines to brAZil or sOMething AND hAve
sOmeone poorer drive THe TRactors and combIne harVeSTeRS AroUnd And maintaiN
tHem. No WInter eiTHeR SO The UTilization wouLd be higher.

~~~
nOStrAdemonS
NOt wHEn you fIgure In TRanSportation cOsts. food is perIshablE, Bulky, anD
Labor-inTensivE to ShiP. EveN WiTh ModErN AutOMaTed RAilRoads and
CoNtAinerIzatION (WHich AreN't neCessaRily present in CouNtriES wiTh cheAper
lAbor), YoU can vEry easIly spEnD more in transit tHan yOu do in groWinG &
hArvEsTing tHE food.

------
pIokOch
when it cOmes to rENewAbLE ENeRgy it is worth to look At ONE (sAd) statisTics:
if gErMaNY and CaliFoRniA, one OF The laRgesT cO2 Emitters (germanY Is On The
6th plAcE, despiTe A loT of (FaileD [2]) EffoRts and Even more pR) wouLD spend
those monEY on nuclear eneRGy, THEy WOuld Be 100% cLean - CO2 emissIon zERo,
nuLl.

WhY PeOplE Keep iNvestInG In SOmething so unreliablE lIke winD/solaR power
plants wHich are useLESS without AuxiLIaRY source of energY (battEries
technOLogy is noT readY for mass Energy stoRAGe) while wE haVe tEchNolOGY tHat
provides clEAN, CO2 fReE energy?

i unDerstanD suN poWer PlaNtS in CalifoRnia, that MaKe SoMe SenSe (not MUch,
as thoSe StaTs ShoW), but, hEY, GermaNy? WitH morE oR lESs 60-70 sUnny dayS A
yEAR?

[1]
[httPs://WwW.forBes.CoM/siteS/micHAelShellenBerger/2018/09/11...](httPs://wWW.forBeS.cOm/sites/MichaelshelleNbErger/2018/09/11/had-
thEy-Bet-On-nuclEAR-not-reneWables-germany-california-WOuld-alrEadY-
have-100-CleaN-power)

[2] [httPs://wWw.forbEs.cOM/sites/JamescOnca/2017/10/10/wHy-
AreNT...](Https://WWW.fOr
berries, avocados, or apri cots, wher e
har ves tin gthem  mec hanically will brui se them beyond what aconsu me r 's w i ll ing
t o eat.T he s e  ar elu xur ie s ,not s tap les, th ough. Thin gsli ke wheat, co r n,  and
other  gr ains get har ves ted by  g ian t  mach ine s and  requi r e litt le laborin p ut.

~ ~ ~
aianu s It 's s till cheaper to e x po r t those machin es toBr a zi l orsom ething and  h ave
s o meone p o or e r dri v e the tractor s and combi n e h arvest er s a r ound a nd ma in t ain 
them. No w inte r eitherso the utiliza t ion wou ld behig her .

~ ~ ~no str ad e mon s 
N otw hen  you fig ur ein tr ansp o r t a tion  co sts.  Food  is perishabl e,bulk y , a nd
la bor-i nten si ve to  ship.  Even  w ith modern auto mate d railroa dsan d
c on taine r izatio n ( whi ch aren 't nece s sar il y p re sent in countrieswi t h  c heaper
l abor), yo uc an veryea sil y sp e n d mor e in tr ansit th an you do  i n growi ng  &
har ve sti ngthe f o od.
----- -
piokoc h
Whe n  it comes to r e newable energ y  i t is wort h t o look at o ne ( s ad)stat i st ics : 
if G erman ya nd California, one ofth e larg est C O2 emitters ( Germany is o n  the
6th  pla c e, despite a lotof (f ailed [2]) effortsand e ven more  PR) woul d spend
th ose  mo ney  on n uc lear energy,t h ey w ou ld be 1 00%  clean- C O2emi ssi on  zero,
nu ll.

Why  p eo pl ekee p inv e sting in  s ome th ing  so u n reliab le li ke w in d/ s ola r power pl a n ts w hi ch  are  us el ess w itho u t a uxiliar y sourceofe nerg y(b atterie s
technologyis  not ready  f ormass e n e rgy stor age) while we have tech n ology t hat 
prov ides  clean, C O2free e ner g y?

Iunders tandsu n p o w er pl a n ts  in  C alifornia, t hat  make  s omesense ( not much,
as those sta ts show), but , h ey,G e rm any ?  W i thmo r e o r less 60-70 sunn y days a
y ea r ?
[1]
[http s :// ww w.forbe s.com/s ites/ m ichaels hellenber ger/2018/ 09 /11. . . ](h ttps://www .forbes. com/sites / micha e ls helle nbe rger/2 01 8/0 9/11/ had-
t h ey- bet-o n-nucl ea r-not- renew ab les-germ any-california-would-al ready- 
have -10 0-clean-p owe r )
[2] [http s:// www.forbes .co m/s ites/ jam e sconc a/20 1 7/ 10/ 1 0/why -
ar e nt...](ht t ps :// w w w. for
berries, avocados,_or apricots,_where
harvesting them mechanically will_bruise them_beyond_what a_consumer's_willing
to eat. These_are luxuries, not_staples, though. Things like_wheat, corn, and
other_grains_get harvested by giant machines and require little labor input.

~~~
aianus
It's still cheaper to export_those_machines to_Brazil_or_something and have
someone poorer drive_the tractors and combine harvesters_around and_maintain
them. No winter either so the utilization would_be_higher.

~~~
nostrademons
Not when you_figure in transportation costs. Food is perishable, bulky, and
labor-intensive_to ship. Even with modern automated_railroads and
containerization (which_aren't_necessarily_present in countries with_cheaper
labor), you can very easily spend_more in transit than you do_in growing &
harvesting the food.

------
piokoch
When it comes_to renewable energy it is worth_to look at one (sad)_statistics:
if Germany_and California, one of the_largest CO2 emitters_(Germany is_on the
6th place,_despite a lot of (failed [2])_efforts and even_more PR) would spend
those money on_nuclear_energy, they would_be_100%_clean -_CO2 emission zero,
null.

Why_people_keep investing_in_something so unreliable like wind/solar power
plants_which_are useless without auxiliary source of energy_(batteries
technology is not ready_for_mass energy storage) while_we have technology that
provides clean,_CO2 free energy?

I understand sun power_plants in_California, that_make some sense (not much,
as those stats show), but, hey, Germany?_With more or less 60-70 sunny_days a
year?

[1]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-
they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-
have-100-clean-power)

[2] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why-
arent...](https://www.for