3 ms·
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:
by 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 agoThere 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 agosorry , 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 agoYeah, 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.