3 ms·
It seems like NYC is a poor place to house this. Ideally, if you wanted it to be viable and not just a proof-of-concept, you'd find somewhere with cheap electri
by tgb 10y ago
It seems like NYC is a poor place to house this. Ideally, if you wanted it to be viable and not just a proof-of-concept, you'd find somewhere with cheap electricity, cheaper land/rent than NYC[1], and expensive fresh produce. My guess is Iceland would be a good spot, and I'd be a little surprised if they didn't have something like this already in the works. Iceland also has another side benefit for traditional greenhouses: the ground can naturally heat the houses. http://www.nea.is/geothermal/direct-utilization/greenhouses/ http://www.nea.is/geothermal/direct-utilization/greenhouses/
[1] It's actually in Newark, not sure what property prices are like there.
- brainflake 10y agoCheap to extremely cheap. Newark has been plagued with low employment and violence for a long time, although it is currently going through a bit of an uptick thanks mostly to investments in the downtown area and general positive attention due to Corey Booker.
- ascagnel_ 10y agoThe issue with Newark is good access to clean water and air pollution. Newark (especially the Passaic River that cuts through the city) has a long history of terrible pollution, and the shipyards and airport contribute to some generally poor air quality.
- tomp 10y agoCouldn't an indoors farm use a closed air system? Actually, no - it would probably consume CO2 and produce O2, so there would need to be some exchange with the external world, but it would probably be beneficial to do it in a controlled manner, to avoid loosing water and getting pollution in.
- sharpercoder 10y agoMore factors com into play then just energy costs. Warmth, distance-to-market, water, real estate just to name a few.