[HN Gopher] 4k tons of potatoes to be given away for free in Berlin
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       4k tons of potatoes to be given away for free in Berlin
        
       Author : mrzool
       Score  : 120 points
       Date   : 2026-01-14 16:57 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.the-berliner.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.the-berliner.com)
        
       | jandhdhshhh wrote:
       | Good on them for going through the trouble to make sure they're
       | not wasted
        
       | atarian wrote:
       | Hopefully it's real this time:
       | https://www.vice.com/en/article/viral-free-potatoes-post-cos...
        
       | Aurornis wrote:
       | This is an interesting example of what happens when the supply
       | and demand curve goes into the extreme ends of the chart: The
       | price of "selling" your product goes negative. It costs money to
       | get rid of it.
       | 
       | Negative prices occur from time to time in the electricity market
       | because some types of power plants are slow to ramp up and down.
       | So if demand falls too rapidly, spot electricity prices can
       | negative.
        
         | strongpigeon wrote:
         | Oil briefly went negative a couple years ago too which was
         | shocking. I thought about "buying" some, but then realized I'd
         | have to set up for the oil to be picked up (or try to sell the
         | contract before it expired).
        
           | zahlman wrote:
           | > a couple years ago
           | 
           | It was near the beginning of the pandemic, due to the demand
           | shock of everything shutting down.
           | 
           | There were probably practical ways to profit off the low
           | prices (assuming the risk of them _not_ recovering), but I
           | never did figure out something that would work for a retail
           | investor.
        
             | buckle8017 wrote:
             | The only way to profit was too have a large storage tank.
        
               | nemomarx wrote:
               | did it not come with the barrels? I figured you'd just
               | need a warehouse and a truck.
               | 
               | (which is a pretty big ask, of course, and maybe free
               | labor to pick it up up and move it into the truck...(
        
               | meindnoch wrote:
               | Lol, no. When you buy "barrels" of oil on a commodity
               | market, the barrel is a unit of volume (42 US gallons).
        
               | SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
               | Barrels are over $50 each even in bulk. The oil is often
               | less than the barrel, "1 barrel" of oil is a unit of
               | volume equal to 42 US gallons. The price/barrel is the
               | price of _bulk_ oil, not oil literally transported in
               | barrels.
        
         | jbm wrote:
         | When I worked at a Coke bottler in Japan, we had similar issues
         | with product.
         | 
         | Stuff that didn't sell was called "Flush Out" and had to be
         | disposed of.
         | 
         | You couldn't legally just dump the contents without paying
         | money so I made an app that let employees get cases for
         | shipping costs. It was popular, even though we were usually
         | talking about weird flavours that no one liked (stuff akin to
         | Apple Ginger ale)
         | 
         | They eventually got rid of it, but I was already out of the
         | company so I didn't know the reason.
        
           | aqme28 wrote:
           | Sometimes employee benefits like that have weird tax
           | obligations that the company would rather not deal with.
        
           | einsteinx2 wrote:
           | > It was popular, even though we were usually talking about
           | weird flavours that no one liked (stuff akin to Apple Ginger
           | ale)
           | 
           | I know this is beside the point, but Apple Ginger Ale sounds
           | legitimately awesome. I've never seen that flavor before, but
           | now I really want to try it haha.
        
         | zahlman wrote:
         | > The price of "selling" your product goes negative. It costs
         | money to get rid of it.
         | 
         | But there also has to be a cost (or other liability) to
         | _keeping_ it, or you could just wait for demand to arise.
         | (There generally is some kind of inventory /warehousing cost.
         | But just saying.)
        
         | lm28469 wrote:
         | I've recently seen potatoes for 26ct a kilo in a supermarket
         | and wondered how people made money on that, farming,
         | transportation, supermarket margin, &c.
        
       | leoc wrote:
       | _sigh_ Why am I never where the excitement is?
        
         | darth_avocado wrote:
         | Sam..? Is that you?
        
       | fuzzfactor wrote:
       | I would want at least a ton of ketchup with that.
        
         | whiterook6 wrote:
         | Oh, wow--what if Big Ketchup is behind this? Huge, if true.
        
         | nicbou wrote:
         | This is Germany. We might also need mayo, depending on
         | preference.
        
       | wasmainiac wrote:
       | When life give you potatoes, make vodka... or?
        
         | darth_avocado wrote:
         | Make fries and freeze them.
        
         | madduci wrote:
         | Fries
        
         | cpursley wrote:
         | Vodka is generally made from grains.
        
           | umanwizard wrote:
           | Vodka can be made from anything with fermentable sugars.
           | You're right that grain vodka is more common but potato vodka
           | is definitely a thing.
        
         | pelagicAustral wrote:
         | Akvavit
        
         | tenpies wrote:
         | Boil them, mash them, stick'em in a stew.
        
       | waldarbeiter wrote:
       | "4,000 tons is almost four million kilograms"
        
         | Perz1val wrote:
         | LLMs couldn't've written that!
        
         | ihaveajob wrote:
         | I guess you're quoting it because it is EXACTLY four million
         | kilograms?
        
           | NitpickLawyer wrote:
           | Probably for our freedom unit loving friends, they have a
           | different ton (because why not).
        
             | throwway120385 wrote:
             | Our freedom tons are built for our particularly large
             | trucks.
        
               | MisterTea wrote:
               | Believe it or not the Europeans run heavier trucks than
               | Americans. Ours just get to be longer.
        
             | localuser13 wrote:
             | I also like to take potshots at Americans, but come on.
             | It's unlikely that a newspaper called "the berliner" in a
             | article about Berlin included this line specifically
             | thinking about citizens of a far-away foreign country who
             | don't use metric units that often.
             | 
             | Occam's razor says that it's actually one of our noble and
             | enlightened European journalists who made that sloppy
             | remark without realising it.
        
           | __MatrixMan__ wrote:
           | They only reported one significant figure, could be as little
           | as 3500. kg or as much as 4499.99999... kg
        
         | mathieuh wrote:
         | Maybe targeted at Americans and using US customary short tons
         | (which is 907 kg)
        
           | tosti wrote:
           | 4,000 tonnes is almost exactly 4 tonne. Could be 4,0004
           | tonne.
        
             | badc0ffee wrote:
             | That's not how the comma separator works in English.
        
           | mindslight wrote:
           | As an American, I'm going to need this as a volume, either in
           | terms of Olympic-sized swimming pools or the height of a pile
           | in an [American] football stadium. Maybe I'd accept weight as
           | a quantity of Ford F-150s, but you'd be pushing it.
        
         | nayuki wrote:
         | "4k tons" is 4 gigagrams (Gg).
        
       | dvh wrote:
       | 3 days ago I paid EUR0.79/kg in Slovakia.
        
         | lm28469 wrote:
         | I've seen 26ct in a lidl in Kosice. For reference an empty
         | potatoe mesh bag costs like 15ct each if you buy them as a
         | private person in a store
        
       | ArtDev wrote:
       | In America, we just let people go hungry while grinding the
       | excess crop back into fertilizer.
        
         | jtbayly wrote:
         | We let people go hungry? This is really not a problem today.
        
           | sdoering wrote:
           | According to non profits, 1 in 7 Americans, 1 in 5 American
           | children:
           | 
           | https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america
        
             | f1shy wrote:
             | In the site says "FACT - 100% of Counties - Hunger exists
             | in everywhere - no community is untouched"
             | 
             | What I pretty much suspected. But that in USA 20% of
             | children don't get enough? That is a big TIL for my
             | ignorance. A sister comment states some child eat only at
             | school. Boy I thought (in 2 figure percentage) was only 3rd
             | world.
        
               | Aerroon wrote:
               | The figures are a bit misleading. First you've got to
               | understand what food security is:
               | 
               | > _" at the household level, food security is defined as
               | access to food that is adequate in terms of quality,
               | quantity, safety and cultural acceptability for all
               | household members." (Gillespie, and Mason, 1991)._[0]
               | 
               | These potatoes being given away might not meet all the
               | criteria for food security either. Eg they might not have
               | all the things that are considered a nutritious meal (but
               | I'm unsure).
               | 
               | Second, the website might say "1 in 7 people face _daily_
               | challenges ", but it's probably based on this stat:
               | 
               | > _An estimated 86.3 percent of U.S. households were food
               | secure throughout the entire year in 2024, with access at
               | all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for
               | all household members. The remaining households (13.7
               | percent) were food insecure at least some time during the
               | year._
               | 
               | Ie for the vast majority of these people it's not a daily
               | thing, but something that happens sometimes (but even
               | sometimes is too much imo).
               | 
               | And from the report summary:
               | 
               | > _Children are usually shielded from the conditions that
               | characterize very low food security. However, in 2024,
               | children, along with adults, experienced instances of
               | very low food security in 0.9 percent of households with
               | children, statistically similar to the 1.0 percent in
               | both 2023 and 2022. These 318,000 households with very
               | low food security among children reported that, at times
               | in 2024, children were hungry, skipped a meal, or did not
               | eat for a whole day because there was not enough money
               | for food._
               | 
               | I'm not saying food insecurity isn't a thing, but these
               | headlines often paint a different picture than what's
               | really happening.
               | 
               | That said, perhaps the reason why food insecurity is
               | relatively low is because these advocacies say what they
               | say. Food security is a bit like server up-time - it's
               | relatively easy to get 99% uptime, but getting to 99.999%
               | uptime is very hard. With food security the numbers are
               | lower though - relatively easy to get 80-90% food
               | security in a developed country but the last 10% are very
               | hard (or at least that's what it seems to me).
               | 
               | ---
               | 
               | [0] https://www.fao.org/4/x0172e/x0172e01.htm
               | 
               | [1] https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-
               | details?pubid=1136...
        
               | f1shy wrote:
               | Thank you. I have to admit I did not take time to real
               | all. I was just shocked by the 1 in 5. I kinda suspected
               | is not the same definition of poverty and malnutrition in
               | the 1st and 3rd world (I lived in both and know there are
               | big differences) but is still was shocking high. But as
               | you point out, is little more nuanced, and I will not
               | keep the 20% figure in my head.
        
           | throwway120385 wrote:
           | Still a problem in the US. School lunch is the only meal of
           | the day for a surprising number of kids.
        
           | nullstyle wrote:
           | yes, it very much is. plenty of school age children go
           | hungry, and the school district I used to work for had a
           | major program to make sure poor kids and "Children in
           | transition" (i.e. homeless) were fed at least a good
           | breakfast and lunch.
           | 
           | Given the direction of public school funding, and the
           | sentiment of MAGA shitheels, I expect the problem to worsen.
        
           | versale wrote:
           | Just google for Household Food Security in the US. You might
           | get surprised.
        
       | SpudEater wrote:
       | This is great news to me.
        
         | honeycrispy wrote:
         | Some farmer probably lost a lot of money over this. Our farmers
         | feed us, and generally have thin margins. I see headlines like
         | this and I generally see it as reason for concern as the market
         | not working like it should, and could be a signal of a larger
         | problem down the road.
        
           | t-3 wrote:
           | This is about the yield of a few hundred acres of potato.
           | It's inconsequential in terms of the "market".
        
           | NitpickLawyer wrote:
           | > Some farmer probably lost a lot of money over this.
           | 
           | The farmer got their money (it was purchased in advance). The
           | company purchasing it didn't pick it up tho, because demand
           | is not there, and they'd likely lose more money on transport
           | and distribution. Which is where the two companies doing this
           | campaign come in - they pay for distribution costs, so the
           | farmer doesn't throw them away.
        
       | buckle8017 wrote:
       | These particular potatoes won't be wasted.
       | 
       | But other potatoes likely will be.
       | 
       | It's not like people are suddenly going to want more potatoes.
        
         | fwip wrote:
         | Lots of people are price-sensitive to groceries, and will eat
         | more potatoes if some of them are free.
        
         | cperciva wrote:
         | There is some elasticity of demand. Some people will eat more
         | potatoes and less bread or rice. Other people will fill up
         | their cupboards; just because the farmer doesn't want to store
         | these for later doesn't mean that individual consumers won't.
        
         | lkbm wrote:
         | A lot of people will have a few more potato-heavy meals if they
         | happen to have more potatoes. This means they'll (presumably)
         | buy a little less of other ingredients for a spell, and maybe
         | we'll end up with more of those going to waste, but it's
         | definitely possible for that not to happen. Seems like a ripple
         | of delayed food purchases of dry goods can be absorbed by
         | reduced production far, far down the line.
        
         | mrzool wrote:
         | Joke's on you, got an air fryer for Christmas and I'm roasting
         | potatoes every day, never bought so many potatoes in my life.
         | They're absolutely delicious.
        
           | brcmthrowaway wrote:
           | If only they were genetically modified to contain more
           | protein
        
       | admissionsguy wrote:
       | Is this what life in Europe has come to?
        
       | foofoo55 wrote:
       | A farm on the western side of Canada has been doing something
       | similar for years:
       | 
       | https://langleyadvancetimes.com/2025/08/09/record-breaking-u...
        
       | dathinab wrote:
       | this might cause major financial damage to "traditional local
       | markets"(1) and similar in Berlin and Brandenburg close to it
       | (depending on what kind of potatoes this are, like quality,
       | taste, how the cook (hard, soft), etc.)
       | 
       | (1): Kinda a bit like local farmer markets, but also very
       | different.
       | 
       | the problem isn't the giving away stuff for free part
       | 
       | but the scale of it
       | 
       | I mean giving free stuff to people in need is always grate,
       | irrelevant of scale.
       | 
       | Giving it to people which can easily afford it on small scale is
       | just fine too.
       | 
       | Giving it to people which can easily afford it on gigantic scale
       | and it's only slightly hurting the bottom line of some huge
       | cooperation, then who cares.
       | 
       | But giving away a product people might have bought from smaller
       | local businesses in very larger amounts (more then what such
       | small 1-2 person businesses sell in multiple month), that is
       | where your "charitable" action might cost people their job and
       | you might do far more harm then good.
       | 
       | now Germans are picky about their potato and the chance that 4k
       | Tons of free potato are the kind of potato you find in "local
       | traditional markets" is pretty slim. So this might all just be
       | very hypothetical.
        
         | elcapitan wrote:
         | They are giving this away in portions of 1t, which isn't
         | practical for normal consumers (unless they manage to pool
         | somehow), so this won't have much of an effect on the normal
         | consumer market. It's mostly directed at aid organizations,
         | social stuff etc.
         | 
         | From the original pages FAQ:
         | 
         | > Wie viele Kartoffeln bekomme ich?
         | 
         | > Jede Abnahmestelle erhalt ca. 1 Tonne (1.000 kg) Kartoffeln.
        
           | dathinab wrote:
           | thanks
        
           | usrusr wrote:
           | That FAQ is directed at organizations willing to act as a
           | _distribution point_. So mostly charities who think they can
           | spare the time and effort. I guess a better written FAQ would
           | put it "Wie viele Kartoffeln bekommen _wir_?", making it more
           | visible that it's directed at organizations. I just sampled a
           | few of the distribution points already acknowledged and those
           | do look like they will be passing them on to individual
           | consumers.
        
       | bell-cot wrote:
       | While this give-away sounds cool...
       | 
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_bank#Germany
       | 
       | https://www.wfp.org/countries/ukraine
        
       | mytailorisrich wrote:
       | Ultimately this may just move the wastage somehwere else: people
       | may get those for free instead of buying them, leading to waste
       | in supermarkets/shops. Or they might take more than they need
       | because it's free and end up throwing them away.
       | 
       | It seems that they acknowledge that they are doing thus because
       | there is a supply glut so potatoes will go to waste in any
       | case...
       | 
       | Ultimately this give away is a waste of efforts, too. Sometimes
       | there is just nothing to be done...
        
         | bondarchuk wrote:
         | To be honest it sounds like you (and some other commenters) are
         | just rationalizing because the concept of giving stuff away for
         | free is too much at odds with your world view. Maybe some is
         | going to waste but surely less than would go to waste if they
         | destroyed all of these.
        
           | mytailorisrich wrote:
           | Can we not start with the personal attacks and the
           | assumptions about other's "worldviews"?
           | 
           |  _Be kind. Don 't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-
           | examine. Edit out swipes._
           | 
           |  _Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of
           | what someone says, not a weaker one that 's easier to
           | criticize. Assume good faith._
        
         | nemomarx wrote:
         | It might be a lossy savings, but I would think at least some
         | percentage of people who take the free potatoes weren't going
         | to buy them and will eat some of them. So maybe you get 5-10
         | percent less total waste for the labor time, pessimistically?
         | And hopefully more.
        
       | luxuryballs wrote:
       | They should take them to France so they can become... you know
       | the rest, but now I wonder how much weight the oil would add to
       | 4k tons of potatoes.
        
         | wiether wrote:
         | I know some people call them "French fries", but history is
         | arguing between France and Belgium for their origin.
         | 
         | And nowadays, Belgians eat way more of them per capita than
         | they do!
        
       | gigatexal wrote:
       | this is awesome, potatoes are so good for you
        
       | bee_rider wrote:
       | Unless there's some funny unit issue going on (I know there are
       | short and long tons...), it looks like Germany consumed around
       | 5000KT of potatoes in 2022.
       | 
       | https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/potato-co...
       | 
       | > A farm in Saxony has been left with 4,000 tons of potatoes in
       | what Berliner Morgenpost is calling "a story about the
       | absurdities of our food system".
       | 
       | I dunno; it doesn't seem too absurd, better to have too many than
       | too few potatoes.
        
         | Glawen wrote:
         | I'm having hard time to visualize it, can you convert them in
         | adult elephants and TV Tower height? Bear in mind I only saw
         | asian elephants in zoo.
        
           | Xylakant wrote:
           | A ton is a big bag (yes, they get delivered in bags and
           | that's the name for them), which is pretty exactly a cubic
           | meter. 4000 tons is hence a 2x2meter tower, 1km high. Or
           | 20mx20m, 10m high.not sure how high you can stack TV towers
           | or Asian elephants. The conversion is left as an exercise to
           | the reader.
        
             | uniq7 wrote:
             | > which is pretty exactly a cubic meter
             | 
             | That would be if we were talking about water (and at 4oC if
             | we want to be "exact"), but potatoes have a different
             | density and cannot fill the space entirely due to their
             | irregular shapes. Are you saying that those two things
             | cancel themselves out and the result is that 1 cubic meter
             | of potatoes is "exactly" 1 tone?
        
       | olieidel wrote:
       | Berlin is a great place to observe policies with good intentions,
       | yet negative second-order effects.
       | 
       | Distributing free potatoes will likely cause waste somewhere
       | else, as e.g. people will buy less potatoes in supermarkets. The
       | waste just becomes less visible as supermarkets dispose of food
       | every day.
       | 
       | Another current exhibit is the prohibition of using salt for
       | removing snow and ice from the pavements because it's "bad for
       | plants and the ground water". While that is true to some degree,
       | the Berlin policy conveniently ignores all second-order effects:
       | Sidewalks are more slippery, more people get hurt. I see people
       | slipping on snow-compacted ice almost every day. How many trees
       | have to be saved to make it worthwhile for more people breaking
       | their bones?
       | 
       | You can apply for an exemption though, e.g. if you plan to use
       | salt on a driveway to a hospital. Processing fees for such an
       | exemption are up to 1.4kEUR [1].
       | 
       | The rent cap is another one. But let's go there another day..
       | 
       | [1] https://www.berlin.de/umwelt/themen/natur-pflanzen-
       | artenschu...
        
         | palmotea wrote:
         | > Another current exhibit is the prohibition of using salt for
         | removing snow and ice from the pavements because it's "bad for
         | plants and the ground water". While that is true to some
         | degree, the Berlin policy conveniently ignores all second-order
         | effects: Sidewalks are more slippery, more people get hurt.
         | 
         | Rigorously considering second-order (and greater) effects is a
         | _massive_ undertaking, though. Like: how do you even know how
         | many more people will slip and get hurt without salting
         | sidewalks and how much the damage the salt does to  "plants and
         | ground water," without many careful and expensive research
         | projects? And then there's the challenge of weighing such
         | completely disparate things: how many injuries are healthier
         | plants worth?
         | 
         | Basically is seems easier said than done.
        
           | Xylakant wrote:
           | The problem is not salting or not - the problem is that the
           | house owners are liable for cleaning the sidewalk and they
           | all outsourced it to the same companies. And the companies
           | unsurprisingly all fail to deliver on their obligations
           | because they take on way more customers they could possibly
           | handle. The result is as expected - nothing gets done. A
           | shovel and broom, maybe some grit would have been enough.
           | 
           | But there's no shred of enforcement and instead of calling
           | for enforcement, politicians now call for relaxing the rules
           | on salting.
        
         | card_zero wrote:
         | > How many trees have to be saved to make it worthwhile for
         | more people breaking their bones?
         | 
         | That has a specific answer, like "twenty". But calculating it
         | would be a hopeless task.
        
         | BeetleB wrote:
         | > While that is true to some degree, the Berlin policy
         | conveniently ignores all second-order effects: Sidewalks are
         | more slippery, more people get hurt
         | 
         | I seriously doubt they did not know that. The whole point of
         | salt is to prevent people from falling. Of course they knew
         | more people will fall.
        
         | bigbluesax wrote:
         | Is the concept of someone who usually doesn't eat potatoes
         | getting a bag and spending the next week making some potato
         | dishes really that inconceivable? I don't doubt that this will
         | lead to some waste - I've thrown out more half empty potato
         | bags than I would like to admit - but that's a very negative
         | outlook.
         | 
         | Also how do you choose between negative second order effects?
         | Salting roads creates negative effects for groundwater and
         | plants which are really hard to mitigate. On the other hand the
         | second order effect of people slipping could at least be dealt
         | with on an individual level by putting spikes on your shoes.
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _how do you choose between negative second order effects?_
           | 
           | First off you have to identify them. Until you frame the
           | costs and benefits of salting, it isn't clear that the real
           | question is how can we improve pedestrian and vehicular
           | traction without poisoning our plants and water supply. (I'd
           | argue it's frequent ploughing, gravelling and dynamic signs
           | for signalling when chains/snowies/AWD are required.)
        
         | literalAardvark wrote:
         | You could always just clean the snow instead of salting it.
         | It's not rocket science.
        
           | bmulholland wrote:
           | Most Berlin sidewalks are uneven cobblestone, not a flat
           | uniform concrete, so the cleaning is probably a lot more
           | difficult than you're envisioning :)
        
             | Xylakant wrote:
             | The neighbors snow response contractor had an electric
             | brush on a broom handle, that looked pretty nifty and took
             | like 15 minutes for the whole front to be spotless clean.
             | Then they added a bit of grit, done. The contractor for our
             | block didn't even show up. Not sure allowing salt would
             | have changed anything.
        
         | bryanrasmussen wrote:
         | I mean it sounds sort of if you know what the second order
         | effect of damage to plants and ground water will be if people
         | salt their driveways? I would think you sort of need to run the
         | test in production to see which way is more beneficial.
        
         | yunohn wrote:
         | Surely if you can consider the second order effects of giving
         | away these extra potatoes for free, then you can also consider
         | the second order effects of not giving them away? And maybe
         | even thinking more about it, consider that they may be going to
         | different markets/people/causes?
         | 
         | Given this example is about 1T batches of potatoes, it could be
         | used by a business that depends on cheap potatoes like a food
         | kitchen, or a business that can absorb the input surge and
         | convert it into a product that can be stored longer term like
         | frozen foods.
        
         | marc_g wrote:
         | As someone who just went outside to buy groceries in Berlin and
         | watched them salt the road on my way to Kaufland, I am
         | confused. Is it just for sidewalks?
        
           | yorwba wrote:
           | Are you sure they weren't using sand or gravel instead?
        
             | marc_g wrote:
             | Hmm, I mean it was a lot of white stuff coming out. Again,
             | on the street, so maybe it's different rules compared to
             | sidewalks. Possibly sand, but I'm pretty sure it's salt.
             | 
             | EDIT: Seems that some roads are allowed to be salted! It's
             | a pretty main thoroughfare, so likely the case.
             | https://www.bsr.de/bsr-winterdienst-gut-geruestet-fuer-
             | die-k...
        
           | olieidel wrote:
           | Roads are salted, everything else is not.
        
         | blell wrote:
         | >How many trees have to be saved to make it worthwhile for more
         | people breaking their bones?
         | 
         | The **** is a death cult. They are very very happy to see you
         | become an invalid if it avoids the death of a sapling. I know
         | that this sounds hyperbolic to the point of being derisive, but
         | it's the observable truth.
        
           | OKRainbowKid wrote:
           | Who specifically are you talking about?
        
         | Voultapher wrote:
         | Salting your ground water is also a second-order effect. The
         | way you put that statement into quotes shows that you value
         | human well being over everything else. Personally I don't. Life
         | on earth is a co-op and we don't win by being the last ones
         | standing, as we are desperately trying right now.
        
       | CalRobert wrote:
       | I prefer to think of it as 4 kilotons.
        
         | meatmanek wrote:
         | 4 gigagrams
        
       | rpozarickij wrote:
       | > 4,000 tons
       | 
       | I did some math out of curiosity to better visualize this amount
       | in my head. If we assume that a typical serving of potatoes in a
       | meal where potatoes are an important part is 200g, then with 4
       | million kg of potatoes you can make 20 million of such meals (1/4
       | of Germany's population).
        
         | t-3 wrote:
         | Or ~1600k small sacks of potatoes. About one sack per two
         | people in Berlin, which is probably around roughly one per
         | household.
        
       | woah wrote:
       | Distributing (trucking, rent and employees at grocery stores,
       | etc) the potatoes costs more than growing them. Even if they are
       | available for free at the farm, the market price in the city
       | cannot go below the cost of distribution without grocery stores
       | and shipping companies working for free, which they have no
       | reason to do. These are already some of the lowest-margin
       | businesses out there.
       | 
       | In this case, it seems that Berliner Morgenpost and Ecosia are
       | doing shipping and distribution for free, for PR reasons or maybe
       | as some kind of charitable volunteering project. It's nice of
       | them to volunteer their time, but it seems strange to talk about
       | "a story about the absurdities of our food system". Are they
       | saying that it is absurd that a newspaper doesn't permanently
       | turn into a money-losing grocery distributor?
        
         | wiether wrote:
         | The story from Morgenpost:
         | 
         | https://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/article410886475/gruene-woc...
        
       | politelemon wrote:
       | Ich bin ein Berliner
        
       | nicbou wrote:
       | That's fun! The distribution points are too far from me, and
       | getting the free potatoes would be completely impractical, but I
       | am sure some people will benefit.
        
       | tomaytotomato wrote:
       | That could be a big potato battery bank?
       | 
       | According to google a 200g potato give off about half a volt
       | (0.5v) and 0.2mah                   4000 tonnes = 4,000,000 kg =
       | 4,000,000,000 g              num potatoes = 4,000,000,000 / 200 =
       | 20,000,000 potatoes              volts = 20,000,000 x 0.5v =
       | 10,000,000 volts (10megavolts)
       | 
       | current would stay the same at 0.2mah
       | 
       | I am not an electrical engineer, what could we do with this?
        
         | Evidlo wrote:
         | Thinking about wattage is more useful. We'd get about 2MW so
         | you could run 20k-ish homes (1kW average across a day) for a
         | short time until the potato energy is depleted.
         | 
         | You'll also need to buy the metal electrodes.
        
         | barbegal wrote:
         | The energy comes from the metal electrodes not the potato.
         | Potato is just an electrolyte carrying current between the
         | cathode and anode.
        
         | agilob wrote:
         | I think it might better to produce alcohols from it and then
         | burn the liquids and gasses.
        
       | axel479343 wrote:
       | This is so sad. I'm sure there is some way to turn them into
       | biofuel. Instead they are just a snack to people that will not
       | even appreciate it
        
       | meindnoch wrote:
       | >4,000 tons is almost four million kilograms
       | 
       | It is exactly four million kilograms. (Germany uses the SI metric
       | ton)
        
         | Aaronmacaron wrote:
         | TIL there are two units of measurement that are both called ton
         | but confusingly are not the same as a ton. One is a tiny bit
         | more than a ton (1.016 tons) and one is a bit less (0.907
         | tons). Apparently people use the prefixes long and short to
         | differentiate them, at least that part is intuitive.
        
       | jmpman wrote:
       | I've wondered if something like this would drive down inflation
       | in the US food supply.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2026-01-14 23:01 UTC)