4 ms·

There's something neat going on here. Projects like this take growing that happens in the rural areas to the city. We've always had a strife between country an

by kefka 10y ago

There's something neat going on here. Projects like this take growing that happens in the rural areas to the city. We've always had a strife between country and city life, and country life is where food is grown. With this change, we're seeing food done in the city as well. Of course this could be seen as potentially bad for farmers, as they lose a bit more control... But there's some awesome upsides: Potentially completely robotic. I was looking into with a friend about an automated greenhouse. It fell through due to medical disasters, but we had the nuts and bolts figured out. The gist is hydroponics with tilapia serving as protein and fertilizer for the plants. It would take around 10 mins/day for up to 100sq. ft. (it's considered that 25 sq ft is enough to feed a human indefinitely.) Provides food for a city. Now, instead of having to rely on 'elsewhere', we can point to the building where our food comes from. The gist here is that there's now food security. Lower transportation costs. Now, instead of food coming from 'elsewhere', it comes from the building over there. Distribution costs are cheaper, storage is onsite and local. Is not subject to the growing season. With this system in place, the growing season is now 24/7/365. Is also not subject to a host of pests or other environmental damaging effects. Everything is controlled: light, rain, drainage, nutrients. So yields will be much higher than on land. Organic can be much easier. Since there's few/no pests, neonitonoids and similar aren't needed, nor are other nasty insecticides and herbicides. Yes, it does cost more, due to using electricity. However solar is getting cheaper. These buildings could also be used in conjunction with spillover from power plants: There's no reason why the day/night cycle can't be switched, so that the grow building is using power at night, when power is usually not consumed (and is cheaper). Edit: Seriously, modded down already? How about whoever did that also leave a comment why this is not good content?

mason240 10y ago
This is not going replace farming anymore than me growing a spinach plant in a pot at home. It's actually a little disappointing to see just how out of touch the people in this thread are with farming. Growing food outside, in the ground is always going to be cheaper than building a building.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Instead of being disappointed in us, can you educate us why you think that farming will never change?
  - mason240 10y ago
    I never said it won't change, just that growing food in a field will always be cheaper than in building. Many people in this thread are saying that advances in automation, GMOs, or energy generation will make growing in a building cheaper. It will, but all those advances will apply to field farming as well.
    - Kluny 10y ago
      Well, that's not true. The two key advances of indoor farming are preventing water waste and being able exponentially increase farmable area, by stacking levels. Those two advances will get cheaper and easier for the forseeable future - meanwhile fresh water and farmable land gets scarcer and thus more expensive. The cost of each option will definitely approach parity long before "always" is over.
- kefka 10y ago
  >This is not going replace farming anymore than me growing a spinach plant in a pot at home. Well, I've got 200 sq ft my wife and I are growing by hand. We have manual tools, compost, dirt, and muscles. And your spinach example is a pretty bad one. Why? Spinach grows better when its cold out and earlier in the season. If you plant a week or 2 later, it doesn't really grow and then when the heat hits, it bolts. Bolted spinach and lettuce tastes bitter and bad. It'd sure be nice to be able to grow spinach in ideal conditions... but I can't do that in the ground. >It's actually a little disappointing to see just how out of touch the people in this thread are with farming. Growing food outside, in the ground is always going to be cheaper than building a building. "always going to be cheaper" is a really long time. Sure you mean to put it that way? I'm no farmer, but I grow quite a bit of my food. I guess amateur farmer is probably more accurate. Right now, the economic equation is on the side of "grow in dirt, on property". But 1 acre only gets you an acre of stuff at ideal yield. Add 10 more stories on that same plot of land, and you get 10 acre yield (ideal). And, you're also not counting having a self sufficient city as an intangible. Something like that is the start of an arcology. That technology stack also seems rather important to grow for a spacefaring culture.
ju-st 10y ago
Ignore the downvotes, I think they are from bots. At least I really enjoyed reading your post. However I'm not convinced that growing in the city is worthwhile. One could reduce the energy costs by using simple green houses (artificial light only at night using cheap power, as you proposed) built on cheap plots of land (even in a desert). This could be much cheaper (Capex+Opex) and the only disadvantage is that the greenhouse must be located in rural areas.
- kefka 10y ago
  > At least I really enjoyed reading your post. Thank you :) > However I'm not convinced that growing in the city is worthwhile. One could reduce the energy costs by using simple green houses (artificial light only at night using cheap power, as you proposed) built on cheap plots of land (even in a desert). This could be much cheaper (Capex+Opex) and the only disadvantage is that the greenhouse must be located in rural areas. I agree with you that I think at this time, it is a questionable decision for foodstuffs (marijuana is a whole other ballgame). But, I think there's some areas of "food independence" that could mitigate the cost aspects. There's been a good amount of talk about UBI, including the recent failed Switzerland vote. But in reality, a part of that money would be used on food. What if... a closed loop system like this was made, and plots were guaranteed on a per-person basis? We already now that plants+fish of 25 sq ft is enough to feed a human.. If we scale up and out, tax revenue could pay for this and everybody is now food-secure. It's not an end-all-be-all. It has a lot of flaws that would need to be worked out. However, smaller greenhouse-like systems could be used with LED light on only at night (to supplement an equatorial climate). These could be built, I think, cheaply. Solar plus batteries don't have to be horribly priced, considering both technologies are greatly lowering in price. I also live in Indiana. There's a lot of farmland here, and also a lot of small towns. Poverty is pretty bad, and you can combine it with a lack of transportation grid. I could see this as a way to guarantee food security for small towns, especially if we can figure out how to pump these out cheaply and efficiently. The last piece is a good automation kit, which I've been working on in Node-Red and sensors/actuators. The idea is that this stuff should be as much no-touch as possible, with exception for harvest. And I think that's not only doable, but also cheaply. And, well, save the world in the process :) But I think too big sometimes.
placeybordeaux 10y ago
>Yes, it does cost more, due to using electricity. However solar is getting cheaper. Its kind of funny to talk about how solar will be cutting the costs when solar is exactly what the competition is. Sun -> plant Vs Sun -> Solar Panel -> Light bulbs -> plant.
- kefka 10y ago
  But Photovoltaics is only one method. There's also hydro and geothermal and wind. (Which yes, I know are indirectly from the sun.) Having electricity->lightbulbs->plants means separating oneself from the standard growing cycle, along with all the elements of growing outdoors. Being outside of the growing cycle means you could have different climates in a single large building. And having enclosed buildings for growing means being relatively immune to insects, invasive plants, mold, fungi, and other nasties that can wreck havoc on your crops.

by kefka 10y ago

mason240 10y ago

This is not going replace farming anymore than me growing a spinach plant in a pot at home. It's actually a little disappointing to see just how out of touch the people in this thread are with farming. Growing food outside, in the ground is always going to be cheaper than building a building.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
Instead of being disappointed in us, can you educate us why you think that farming will never change?
- mason240 10y ago
  I never said it won't change, just that growing food in a field will always be cheaper than in building. Many people in this thread are saying that advances in automation, GMOs, or energy generation will make growing in a building cheaper. It will, but all those advances will apply to field farming as well.
  - Kluny 10y ago
    Well, that's not true. The two key advances of indoor farming are preventing water waste and being able exponentially increase farmable area, by stacking levels. Those two advances will get cheaper and easier for the forseeable future - meanwhile fresh water and farmable land gets scarcer and thus more expensive. The cost of each option will definitely approach parity long before "always" is over.
kefka 10y ago
>This is not going replace farming anymore than me growing a spinach plant in a pot at home. Well, I've got 200 sq ft my wife and I are growing by hand. We have manual tools, compost, dirt, and muscles. And your spinach example is a pretty bad one. Why? Spinach grows better when its cold out and earlier in the season. If you plant a week or 2 later, it doesn't really grow and then when the heat hits, it bolts. Bolted spinach and lettuce tastes bitter and bad. It'd sure be nice to be able to grow spinach in ideal conditions... but I can't do that in the ground. >It's actually a little disappointing to see just how out of touch the people in this thread are with farming. Growing food outside, in the ground is always going to be cheaper than building a building. "always going to be cheaper" is a really long time. Sure you mean to put it that way? I'm no farmer, but I grow quite a bit of my food. I guess amateur farmer is probably more accurate. Right now, the economic equation is on the side of "grow in dirt, on property". But 1 acre only gets you an acre of stuff at ideal yield. Add 10 more stories on that same plot of land, and you get 10 acre yield (ideal). And, you're also not counting having a self sufficient city as an intangible. Something like that is the start of an arcology. That technology stack also seems rather important to grow for a spacefaring culture.

ju-st 10y ago

Ignore the downvotes, I think they are from bots. At least I really enjoyed reading your post. However I'm not convinced that growing in the city is worthwhile. One could reduce the energy costs by using simple green houses (artificial light only at night using cheap power, as you proposed) built on cheap plots of land (even in a desert). This could be much cheaper (Capex+Opex) and the only disadvantage is that the greenhouse must be located in rural areas.

kefka 10y ago
> At least I really enjoyed reading your post. Thank you :) > However I'm not convinced that growing in the city is worthwhile. One could reduce the energy costs by using simple green houses (artificial light only at night using cheap power, as you proposed) built on cheap plots of land (even in a desert). This could be much cheaper (Capex+Opex) and the only disadvantage is that the greenhouse must be located in rural areas. I agree with you that I think at this time, it is a questionable decision for foodstuffs (marijuana is a whole other ballgame). But, I think there's some areas of "food independence" that could mitigate the cost aspects. There's been a good amount of talk about UBI, including the recent failed Switzerland vote. But in reality, a part of that money would be used on food. What if... a closed loop system like this was made, and plots were guaranteed on a per-person basis? We already now that plants+fish of 25 sq ft is enough to feed a human.. If we scale up and out, tax revenue could pay for this and everybody is now food-secure. It's not an end-all-be-all. It has a lot of flaws that would need to be worked out. However, smaller greenhouse-like systems could be used with LED light on only at night (to supplement an equatorial climate). These could be built, I think, cheaply. Solar plus batteries don't have to be horribly priced, considering both technologies are greatly lowering in price. I also live in Indiana. There's a lot of farmland here, and also a lot of small towns. Poverty is pretty bad, and you can combine it with a lack of transportation grid. I could see this as a way to guarantee food security for small towns, especially if we can figure out how to pump these out cheaply and efficiently. The last piece is a good automation kit, which I've been working on in Node-Red and sensors/actuators. The idea is that this stuff should be as much no-touch as possible, with exception for harvest. And I think that's not only doable, but also cheaply. And, well, save the world in the process :) But I think too big sometimes.

placeybordeaux 10y ago

>Yes, it does cost more, due to using electricity. However solar is getting cheaper. Its kind of funny to talk about how solar will be cutting the costs when solar is exactly what the competition is. Sun -> plant Vs Sun -> Solar Panel -> Light bulbs -> plant.

kefka 10y ago
But Photovoltaics is only one method. There's also hydro and geothermal and wind. (Which yes, I know are indirectly from the sun.) Having electricity->lightbulbs->plants means separating oneself from the standard growing cycle, along with all the elements of growing outdoors. Being outside of the growing cycle means you could have different climates in a single large building. And having enclosed buildings for growing means being relatively immune to insects, invasive plants, mold, fungi, and other nasties that can wreck havoc on your crops.