4 ms·

There was a lot of discussions about the benefits, and some discussion that was missed. However, vertical farming is still not cost effective compared to more t

There was a lot of discussions about the benefits, and some discussion that was missed. However, vertical farming is still not cost effective compared to more traditional greenhouses. And that's for the highest value crops like lettuce and tomatoes. Commodity crops and animal agriculture are the biggest resource users in this system and vertical farming is no where close to finding a substitute for those. The cost of production will need to come down below the alternatives and that will be challenging, although not impossible in principle.

hellbanner 11y ago
Why isn't it as cost effective? Is that just from a higher start-up cost or is it significantly more expensive to run in the long run? Seems like it would be cheaper (closed environment). Anecdote: I heard that peaches were grown in Greenhouses to avoid rot & bugs and it's been very helpful.
- hanniabu 11y ago
  I work for a vertical farming company (Verticulture Farms) and high property values and utility costs are killers in higher populated areas.
- minthd 11y ago
  Two major , expensive costs - the factory, the equipment, land,etc.very expensive - but maybe this can be solved. maybe. But there's also the required energy: "just to meet a year's U.S. wheat production with vertical farming would, for lighting alone, require EIGHT TIMES as much electricity as all U.S. utilities generate in an entire year"
  - giltleaf 11y ago
    There is no reason to grow wheat in a vertical farm. Vertical farms would be for specialty crops. Would love to see your source on that too. Additionally, not all vertical farming relies on artificial lighting.
    - minthd 11y ago
      sorry , forgot to add source: http://www.alternet.org/story/146686/why_planting_farms_in_skyscrapers_won%27t_solve_our_food_problems http://www.alternet.org/story/146686/why_planting_farms_in_s...
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Yeah, traditional farming uses the sun directly as a major input, and vertical farming has to use a lot of electricity to make up for that -- which is why all the "positive" energy comparisons you see for vertical farming are to other indoor methods. But without cheap, abundant, clean power to replace the way traditional farming uses the sun, vertical farming is either not going to be economically viable on a large scale, or is going to be trading one set of negative externalities for another (traditional farming's externalities from runoff, etc., for the externalities from the power production for vertical farming), or both.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Lots of construction and real estate expenses. The more your farm resembles an actual building rather than a greenhouse or polytunnel, the more expensive. It also sounds like it requires energy and skilled labour. Using externally powered lighting is going to be hugely expensive. Where is that energy coming from, anyway, and is it renewable? I don't think people realise how low farm-gate prices for commodity foods are.
rm999 11y ago
Farming comes with huge amounts of negative environmental externalities (lost ecosystems, runoff, pesticides). I'm curious how the cost effectiveness would change if farms were properly taxed for their environmental impact.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  > I'm curious how the cost effectiveness would change if farms were properly taxed for their environmental impact. Conversely, I wonder if the viability changes if urban areas would subsidize the underlying (most likely expensive) land costs for vertical farming, due to food being required to survive.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Conversely, I wonder if the viability changes if urban areas would subsidize the underlying (most likely expensive) land costs for vertical farming, due to food being required to survive. Well, the viability of living in urban areas would certainly change if another land use competing with housing and existing commercial uses was subsidized by taxing existing residents.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- dwiel 11y ago
  The same is true about the environmental impact of manufacturing all of the steel, aluminum, LEDs, electricity, etc. used in a vertical farm.
jackmoore 11y ago
I don't think anyone is claiming that vertical farming needs to disrupt all traditional farming. Vertical farms would bring food production to urban areas, where the people are. That benefit would be lost on growing livestock fodder.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Vertical farms would bring food production to urban areas, where the people are. i.e., it would drive already high urban real estate prices higher, by competing with existing urban real estate uses, while not being cost effective, because increased output per square foot of land footprint would be offset by the higher cost per square foot of land footprint of urban land. It seems like the kind of thing that makes a lot of sense in places that have very limited access to land with inexpensive shipping costs to populated areas like densely populated islands, but a lot less economic sense in most of the rest of the world.
  - prawn 11y ago
    If solar and battery tech were strong enough, could people have shipping containers buried underground and dedicated to growing using artificial lights? The vertical, compactus-style grow beds. Could bury these things under drive ways, under lawns, garages, decks, pools, etc.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > If solar and battery tech were strong enough, could people have shipping containers buried underground and dedicated to growing using artificial lights? Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. -- Capt. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
- danielweber 11y ago
  Why do we need to bother with bringing food production to urban areas? Just grow the lettuce outside town and bring it in.
giltleaf 11y ago
That's just not true. Vertical farming isn't about building a whole new facility with fancy LED lights. It's about effectively utilizing space to get the most calories/input. There's no reason a traditional greenhouse can't grow crops vertically in their existing infrastructure. Additionally, it seems like you are writing off the idea because "Commodity crops and animal agriculture are the biggest resource users in this system and vertical farming is no where close to finding a substitute for those" Vertical farming isn't going to just poof magically fix everything. It's meant as a supplement to an unhealthy food system. And I think the cost of production will come down.

hellbanner 11y ago

Why isn't it as cost effective? Is that just from a higher start-up cost or is it significantly more expensive to run in the long run? Seems like it would be cheaper (closed environment). Anecdote: I heard that peaches were grown in Greenhouses to avoid rot & bugs and it's been very helpful.

hanniabu 11y ago
I work for a vertical farming company (Verticulture Farms) and high property values and utility costs are killers in higher populated areas.
minthd 11y ago
Two major , expensive costs - the factory, the equipment, land,etc.very expensive - but maybe this can be solved. maybe. But there's also the required energy: "just to meet a year's U.S. wheat production with vertical farming would, for lighting alone, require EIGHT TIMES as much electricity as all U.S. utilities generate in an entire year"
- giltleaf 11y ago
  There is no reason to grow wheat in a vertical farm. Vertical farms would be for specialty crops. Would love to see your source on that too. Additionally, not all vertical farming relies on artificial lighting.
  - minthd 11y ago
    sorry , forgot to add source: http://www.alternet.org/story/146686/why_planting_farms_in_skyscrapers_won%27t_solve_our_food_problems http://www.alternet.org/story/146686/why_planting_farms_in_s...
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Yeah, traditional farming uses the sun directly as a major input, and vertical farming has to use a lot of electricity to make up for that -- which is why all the "positive" energy comparisons you see for vertical farming are to other indoor methods. But without cheap, abundant, clean power to replace the way traditional farming uses the sun, vertical farming is either not going to be economically viable on a large scale, or is going to be trading one set of negative externalities for another (traditional farming's externalities from runoff, etc., for the externalities from the power production for vertical farming), or both.
pjc50 11y ago
Lots of construction and real estate expenses. The more your farm resembles an actual building rather than a greenhouse or polytunnel, the more expensive. It also sounds like it requires energy and skilled labour. Using externally powered lighting is going to be hugely expensive. Where is that energy coming from, anyway, and is it renewable? I don't think people realise how low farm-gate prices for commodity foods are.

rm999 11y ago

Farming comes with huge amounts of negative environmental externalities (lost ecosystems, runoff, pesticides). I'm curious how the cost effectiveness would change if farms were properly taxed for their environmental impact.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> I'm curious how the cost effectiveness would change if farms were properly taxed for their environmental impact. Conversely, I wonder if the viability changes if urban areas would subsidize the underlying (most likely expensive) land costs for vertical farming, due to food being required to survive.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Conversely, I wonder if the viability changes if urban areas would subsidize the underlying (most likely expensive) land costs for vertical farming, due to food being required to survive. Well, the viability of living in urban areas would certainly change if another land use competing with housing and existing commercial uses was subsidized by taxing existing residents.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dwiel 11y ago
The same is true about the environmental impact of manufacturing all of the steel, aluminum, LEDs, electricity, etc. used in a vertical farm.

jackmoore 11y ago

I don't think anyone is claiming that vertical farming needs to disrupt all traditional farming. Vertical farms would bring food production to urban areas, where the people are. That benefit would be lost on growing livestock fodder.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Vertical farms would bring food production to urban areas, where the people are. i.e., it would drive already high urban real estate prices higher, by competing with existing urban real estate uses, while not being cost effective, because increased output per square foot of land footprint would be offset by the higher cost per square foot of land footprint of urban land. It seems like the kind of thing that makes a lot of sense in places that have very limited access to land with inexpensive shipping costs to populated areas like densely populated islands, but a lot less economic sense in most of the rest of the world.
- prawn 11y ago
  If solar and battery tech were strong enough, could people have shipping containers buried underground and dedicated to growing using artificial lights? The vertical, compactus-style grow beds. Could bury these things under drive ways, under lawns, garages, decks, pools, etc.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > If solar and battery tech were strong enough, could people have shipping containers buried underground and dedicated to growing using artificial lights? Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. -- Capt. Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
danielweber 11y ago
Why do we need to bother with bringing food production to urban areas? Just grow the lettuce outside town and bring it in.

giltleaf 11y ago

That's just not true. Vertical farming isn't about building a whole new facility with fancy LED lights. It's about effectively utilizing space to get the most calories/input. There's no reason a traditional greenhouse can't grow crops vertically in their existing infrastructure. Additionally, it seems like you are writing off the idea because "Commodity crops and animal agriculture are the biggest resource users in this system and vertical farming is no where close to finding a substitute for those" Vertical farming isn't going to just poof magically fix everything. It's meant as a supplement to an unhealthy food system. And I think the cost of production will come down.