5 ms·

So instead of less expensive land outside cities, we should grow food on expensive land inside them. Ok. And instead of less expensive nonpotable water suppli

So instead of less expensive land outside cities, we should grow food on expensive land inside them. Ok. And instead of less expensive nonpotable water supplies, we should use expensive potable urban water supplies to irrigate it. Ok. And instead of 100% efficient sunlight to drive photosynthesis, we should use either 40% efficient fossil fuel derived electricity or 16% efficient PV derived electricity to do it. Ok. Also, instead of polluting creeks and rivers with agricultural runoff from farms, we should pollute creeks and rivers with agricultural runoff mixed in with urban sewage (sorry, there's no such thing as a "closed system"). Ok. And finally, instead of paying $2 for an organically-grown, sustainably-farmed head of lettuce at the farmers' market, we should pay $12 for a hydroponically-grown head of lettuce. This article contained zero analysis of economics. Comparisons made were with "other indoor growing methods", not with outdoor sunlight-powered methods. No analysis was undertaken to show that transportation costs make up the difference. No explanation was provided for the added burden on urban (potable!) water supplies. The electricity demands made by this method are obviously unmanageable, yet no solution to this problem was offered (I guess instead of polluting the planet with industrial ag, we pollute it by burning 10x as much coal?). The problem of waste is hand-waved away by calling the operation a "closed system"; nothing lasts forever, and eventually the materials used will have to be discarded, along with residues from the inorganic inputs. "Weather-related crop failures" are dismissed; one wonders where the author thinks urban water supplies and electricity for climate control come from (hint: outdoors!). If you want to improve the efficiency of farming, I'm all for it. You've got a scalable, sustainable way to use less water? Great, go implement it on an existing farm and put your competition out of business. But this is not that. It's a gimmick that is at best marginally economical in places with the world's highest real estate costs and customers willing to pay far above the market rate for gimmicky products. That is not a situation that describes most people on this planet. It's one thing to sell a few thousand heads of lettuce to stockbrokers in Singapore; it's another thing entirely to convince a billion Chinese people to leave their entire country fallow so that they can pay a month's income for one of those heads of lettuce while breathing air so heavily polluted by coal smoke that they drop dead at 25. Good luck with that.

hanniabu 11y ago
The reason for growing in the city is to reduce transportation cost and time.of it gets in the store the same day the plants were harvested then it increases freshness/nutritional value and it increases the shelf life. Growing indoors also allows for a greater control over the growing environment. You can grow any particular grow all year round with much less crop loss. This also eliminates the need for pesticides since you're closing off the plants from insects. Therfore, the "agricultural runoff"is definitely not the same as from an open farm. The only "runoff" is a handful of times a year (maybe 4ish) where the reservoirs are emptied and cleaned. Organically grown plants are GMO free and therefore need a lot more pesticides to keep it looking good. So if you want to pay the cheaper price for a mouth of chemical then that's on you. A lot of people aren't. I agree that the electricity usage is an issue but this is something that is being solved. Year by year we see lights getting more efficient and solar panels getting more efficient as well. When it comes to running out of farmable land and fresh water becoming more scarce and a growing population though, the cost of electricity is a worthwhile trade off in my opinion. You can't wait until the last minute to make the transition away away from traditional agriculture and into more future proof methodologies.
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  > The reason for growing in the city is to reduce transportation cost and time.of it gets in the store the same day the plants were harvested then it increases freshness/nutritional value and it increases the shelf life. So let's see some analysis on the cost of growing in the city vs. cost of transportation plus spoilage. Data, numbers, the good stuff! > This also eliminates the need for pesticides since you're closing off the plants from insects. You don't need to grow indoors to grow pesticide-free. Nor do you need to grow indoors to protect plants from pests. > Organically grown plants are GMO free and therefore need a lot more pesticides to keep it looking good. So if you want to pay the cheaper price for a mouth of chemical then that's on you. Holy conflation, Batman! First of all, "organic" is a family of growing methods; one could grow GM stock using organic methods if one wished, though in most places it will be difficult to get certification. Second, by definition "organic" methods prohibit or greatly restrict the use of pesticides. So you're contradicting yourself here; someone growing non-GM food organically is by definition not using them. > I agree that the electricity usage is an issue but this is something that is being solved. Year by year we see lights getting more efficient and solar panels getting more efficient as well. As I explained, this doesn't matter. A 100%-efficient PV module connected to a 100%-efficient LED bulb with a 100%-efficient transmission and distribution system is at best going to provide the same growing area as the area of those PV modules. The physics of the situation simply do not allow anything more than that, and in this universe, where we obey the laws of thermodynamics, they don't even allow that. Surface farming will always be more efficient than covering the surface with PV modules and farming somewhere else. If you cannot accept this, then your entire argument reduces to "indoor farming is a perpetual motion machine" and you should expect it to be taken as such. > When it comes to running out of farmable land and fresh water becoming more scarce and a growing population though, If you don't have fresh water, you cannot farm anywhere, period. A tap in an urban building is not inhabited by magical water fairies; that water comes from the same places that traditional farms get theirs. If you believe you have a more water-efficient way to farm, why not combine that with the most energy-efficient farming method as well and employ it on the surface? Don't waste such an important advance by trying to sell it in a bundle with magic and perpetual motion.

hanniabu 11y ago

The reason for growing in the city is to reduce transportation cost and time.of it gets in the store the same day the plants were harvested then it increases freshness/nutritional value and it increases the shelf life. Growing indoors also allows for a greater control over the growing environment. You can grow any particular grow all year round with much less crop loss. This also eliminates the need for pesticides since you're closing off the plants from insects. Therfore, the "agricultural runoff"is definitely not the same as from an open farm. The only "runoff" is a handful of times a year (maybe 4ish) where the reservoirs are emptied and cleaned. Organically grown plants are GMO free and therefore need a lot more pesticides to keep it looking good. So if you want to pay the cheaper price for a mouth of chemical then that's on you. A lot of people aren't. I agree that the electricity usage is an issue but this is something that is being solved. Year by year we see lights getting more efficient and solar panels getting more efficient as well. When it comes to running out of farmable land and fresh water becoming more scarce and a growing population though, the cost of electricity is a worthwhile trade off in my opinion. You can't wait until the last minute to make the transition away away from traditional agriculture and into more future proof methodologies.

fredkbloggs 11y ago
> The reason for growing in the city is to reduce transportation cost and time.of it gets in the store the same day the plants were harvested then it increases freshness/nutritional value and it increases the shelf life. So let's see some analysis on the cost of growing in the city vs. cost of transportation plus spoilage. Data, numbers, the good stuff! > This also eliminates the need for pesticides since you're closing off the plants from insects. You don't need to grow indoors to grow pesticide-free. Nor do you need to grow indoors to protect plants from pests. > Organically grown plants are GMO free and therefore need a lot more pesticides to keep it looking good. So if you want to pay the cheaper price for a mouth of chemical then that's on you. Holy conflation, Batman! First of all, "organic" is a family of growing methods; one could grow GM stock using organic methods if one wished, though in most places it will be difficult to get certification. Second, by definition "organic" methods prohibit or greatly restrict the use of pesticides. So you're contradicting yourself here; someone growing non-GM food organically is by definition not using them. > I agree that the electricity usage is an issue but this is something that is being solved. Year by year we see lights getting more efficient and solar panels getting more efficient as well. As I explained, this doesn't matter. A 100%-efficient PV module connected to a 100%-efficient LED bulb with a 100%-efficient transmission and distribution system is at best going to provide the same growing area as the area of those PV modules. The physics of the situation simply do not allow anything more than that, and in this universe, where we obey the laws of thermodynamics, they don't even allow that. Surface farming will always be more efficient than covering the surface with PV modules and farming somewhere else. If you cannot accept this, then your entire argument reduces to "indoor farming is a perpetual motion machine" and you should expect it to be taken as such. > When it comes to running out of farmable land and fresh water becoming more scarce and a growing population though, If you don't have fresh water, you cannot farm anywhere, period. A tap in an urban building is not inhabited by magical water fairies; that water comes from the same places that traditional farms get theirs. If you believe you have a more water-efficient way to farm, why not combine that with the most energy-efficient farming method as well and employ it on the surface? Don't waste such an important advance by trying to sell it in a bundle with magic and perpetual motion.