6 ms·

Arctic farming: Town defies icy conditions with hydroponics

61 points by Mz 10y ago

aaron695 10y ago
> But operators are trying to work out kinks and find ways to lower energy costs, possibly through such alternatives as wind power. This is such a wtf. If wind power was lower in cost, why wouldn't everyone use it over diesel? It's always a huge warning sign to me. A project, that looks exciting and new, also powered by renewables.
- deftnerd 10y ago
  Wind makes sense in a big way too. If you have a building that's heated on the inside, and the air is still outside, it won't lose as much heat to the environment as it would if the wind was blowing at 30mph. Much like how solar is super useful on bright hot summer days in the south... It gives the most power when you want the AC on the most
  - aaron695 10y ago
    If it's efficient for the hydro setup to use wind for heating, why not the rest of the village? My point stands? A better example 'might' be plants can take random times of darkness in their stride so random blackouts don't matter. But given the high cost of the setup I doubt you'd want to screw with efficiency.
    - claudius 10y ago
      Up until very recently, fossil fuel was cheap and there was little incentive to invest in other resources such as wind or solar. Furthermore, there was relatively little political incentive to avoid fossil fuels. Both of these things have changed and large amounts of money have subsequently been invested in renewable energy sources, making them cheaper (mass-produced) and more reliable (better technology). If you were to re-build the town today, wind farms and battery storage may well be the most economic choice, but to switch to wind, it not only has to be cheaper (and more environmentally friendly) but also so much cheaper that the initial investment costs are returned in a reasonably timeframe.
    - atrus 10y ago
      Because there are other things to consider besides efficiency. You don't just swap out your stack on a whim, because you lose other things like experience. There are probably people up there who can fix a diesel generator in a snowstorm blindfolded using a part they had in their garage from 10 years back. They could probably fix a wind turbine. But probably isn't the word you want when your whole town is dependent on that power source. So you start small, fix the problems that will arise, gain a knowledge base, and THEN move on to bigger things.
      - aaron695 10y ago
        The garden is their whole business so for the exact same reason you would not risk it.
    - digler999 10y ago
      Nobody said you can't use wind energy for more than one thing. In addition, demand isn't static (for a village). Whereas demand is static for the heating of the greenhouse, and only changes twice a day for the lighting. So wind energy could be utilized more efficiently.
- hossbeast 10y ago
  Because of the upfront capital expenditure? This is a small town of 3000 people
- bildung 10y ago
  An economics professor and one of her students are walking down the street together. The student says “Hey, look, there’s a $20 bill on the sidewalk!” The professor replies by saying “That’s impossible- if it really were a $20 bill, it would have been picked up by now."
  - aaron695 10y ago
    And would you pick it up if it cost you $18 and been there for a week? The meme of funny stories about economics professor wears a bit thin really. Its a harder degree than many people who create these stories have. If these $20 bills pay off then do it for real not on top of another risky project of picking up a $50 bill for $45
    - bildung 10y ago
      My point was that you cannot deduce unprofitability of wind power from the fact that the place currently runs on diesel. By that reasoning, it makes no sense to install wind power anywhere, because surely in most other cases there were existing power plants, too.
      - ars 10y ago
        > By that reasoning, it makes no sense to install wind power anywhere, because surely in most other cases there were existing power plants, too. The difference is installing wind power for general purpose use, vs installing it specifically for a single project. Installing some new power source specially for one project is a red flag, exactly like he says. If it was a good idea it would be installed for general use.
      - aaron695 10y ago
        I found you point to be, because economists who have done many years of study are stupid and won't pick up $20 because of their many many years of study in the subject would for some reason ditch logic and not pick up a $20 bill. They are stupid people who study at university who reduce brain capacity. Maybe I'm stupid too but, if wind power worked there then that can be the project, no need to add the agriculture on top of it.Why the hell make it harder and use it on only a untested (For viability) growing machine that might make peoples lives better?
malanj 10y ago
If you're also interested in seeing photos of the setup (and the containers), I found some here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-arctic-farming-hydroponics-20161104-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-arctic-farming-hyd...
donquichotte 10y ago
The energy problem is mentioned almost in passing, but it could be a deal breaker for this type of farming. Ventilation, heating and delivering light for photosynthesis require vast amounts of electrical energy, which, according to the article, comes mainly from diesel. Averaged over a day, the sun provides > 12kWh per m^2 in farmable regions (estimated). It takes 70 days to grow cabbage, so for 1m^2 of cabbage that would amount to 168$ at 20cents/kWh.
- patall 10y ago
  It is expensive of course, else they would have been doing it for a long time. But 12kWh/m^2 is for direct sunlight which cabbage etc. probably do not need, as they will have had some thoughts into that, also other hydroponic farms like in Singapore have the same problem. Also the light is tinted more violet and thus more efficiently usable for the plants. And I would not count with 20ct/kWh, as they probably pay industrial rates (though I have no idea how much that is over there).
  - donquichotte 10y ago
    You're right, industrial rates in Anchorage are around 11ct/kWh. Also, it's possible to use LEDs tuned to the absorbtion spectra of chlorophyll, as you say. If my back of the envelope calculations above are wrong by more than an order of magnitude, it might in fact be a commercially viable option for farming. Is this [1] the Singaporean project you were refering to? They probably don't need heating, but nonetheless their quoted energy needs of 3$/month/structure are astonishingly low. [1] http://permaculturenews.org/2014/07/25/vertical-farming-singapores-solution-feed-local-urban-population/ http://permaculturenews.org/2014/07/25/vertical-farming-sing...
  - kw71 10y ago
    A 400W arc lamp plus losses (possibly bringing the total to 600W) was enough to grow 3x3ft. of plants in soil. Plenty of this light was in the green area so not absorbed by plants. I have never seen lima bean plants grow so big or be so productive (4th harvest of the year in december.) I don't want to plant anything outside anymore after this.
Mz 10y ago
To the various critics: A) As someone noted, this is a small town. B) It has a high unemployment rate and it is very remote, so there is both lack of capital and high up front costs. C) It is a tribal culture whose traditional diet is hunter-gatherer based local foods. D) It is so expensive to import produce that this project is already competitive with existing produce prices. The value lies in the fact that it is fresher. They hope to get costs down, this is why they are talking about wind power. I will add that the article only briefly touches on the lack of roads in Alaska. Alaska has something like six times as many pilots per capita as any other state. Due to the extreme weather during the winter, flying is a common form of travel. This adds to the logistical challenges -- and expense -- involved in trying to import new technologies of this scale.

61 points by Mz 10y ago

> But operators are trying to work out kinks and find ways to lower energy costs, possibly through such alternatives as wind power. This is such a wtf. If wind power was lower in cost, why wouldn't everyone use it over diesel? It's always a huge warning sign to me. A project, that looks exciting and new, also powered by renewables.

deftnerd 10y ago
Wind makes sense in a big way too. If you have a building that's heated on the inside, and the air is still outside, it won't lose as much heat to the environment as it would if the wind was blowing at 30mph. Much like how solar is super useful on bright hot summer days in the south... It gives the most power when you want the AC on the most
- aaron695 10y ago
  If it's efficient for the hydro setup to use wind for heating, why not the rest of the village? My point stands? A better example 'might' be plants can take random times of darkness in their stride so random blackouts don't matter. But given the high cost of the setup I doubt you'd want to screw with efficiency.
  - claudius 10y ago
    Up until very recently, fossil fuel was cheap and there was little incentive to invest in other resources such as wind or solar. Furthermore, there was relatively little political incentive to avoid fossil fuels. Both of these things have changed and large amounts of money have subsequently been invested in renewable energy sources, making them cheaper (mass-produced) and more reliable (better technology). If you were to re-build the town today, wind farms and battery storage may well be the most economic choice, but to switch to wind, it not only has to be cheaper (and more environmentally friendly) but also so much cheaper that the initial investment costs are returned in a reasonably timeframe.
  - atrus 10y ago
    Because there are other things to consider besides efficiency. You don't just swap out your stack on a whim, because you lose other things like experience. There are probably people up there who can fix a diesel generator in a snowstorm blindfolded using a part they had in their garage from 10 years back. They could probably fix a wind turbine. But probably isn't the word you want when your whole town is dependent on that power source. So you start small, fix the problems that will arise, gain a knowledge base, and THEN move on to bigger things.
    - aaron695 10y ago
      The garden is their whole business so for the exact same reason you would not risk it.
  - digler999 10y ago
    Nobody said you can't use wind energy for more than one thing. In addition, demand isn't static (for a village). Whereas demand is static for the heating of the greenhouse, and only changes twice a day for the lighting. So wind energy could be utilized more efficiently.
hossbeast 10y ago
Because of the upfront capital expenditure? This is a small town of 3000 people
bildung 10y ago
An economics professor and one of her students are walking down the street together. The student says “Hey, look, there’s a $20 bill on the sidewalk!” The professor replies by saying “That’s impossible- if it really were a $20 bill, it would have been picked up by now."
- aaron695 10y ago
  And would you pick it up if it cost you $18 and been there for a week? The meme of funny stories about economics professor wears a bit thin really. Its a harder degree than many people who create these stories have. If these $20 bills pay off then do it for real not on top of another risky project of picking up a $50 bill for $45
  - bildung 10y ago
    My point was that you cannot deduce unprofitability of wind power from the fact that the place currently runs on diesel. By that reasoning, it makes no sense to install wind power anywhere, because surely in most other cases there were existing power plants, too.
    - ars 10y ago
      > By that reasoning, it makes no sense to install wind power anywhere, because surely in most other cases there were existing power plants, too. The difference is installing wind power for general purpose use, vs installing it specifically for a single project. Installing some new power source specially for one project is a red flag, exactly like he says. If it was a good idea it would be installed for general use.
    - aaron695 10y ago
      I found you point to be, because economists who have done many years of study are stupid and won't pick up $20 because of their many many years of study in the subject would for some reason ditch logic and not pick up a $20 bill. They are stupid people who study at university who reduce brain capacity. Maybe I'm stupid too but, if wind power worked there then that can be the project, no need to add the agriculture on top of it.Why the hell make it harder and use it on only a untested (For viability) growing machine that might make peoples lives better?

malanj 10y ago

If you're also interested in seeing photos of the setup (and the containers), I found some here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-arctic-farming-hydroponics-20161104-story.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-arctic-farming-hyd...

donquichotte 10y ago

The energy problem is mentioned almost in passing, but it could be a deal breaker for this type of farming. Ventilation, heating and delivering light for photosynthesis require vast amounts of electrical energy, which, according to the article, comes mainly from diesel. Averaged over a day, the sun provides > 12kWh per m^2 in farmable regions (estimated). It takes 70 days to grow cabbage, so for 1m^2 of cabbage that would amount to 168$ at 20cents/kWh.

patall 10y ago
It is expensive of course, else they would have been doing it for a long time. But 12kWh/m^2 is for direct sunlight which cabbage etc. probably do not need, as they will have had some thoughts into that, also other hydroponic farms like in Singapore have the same problem. Also the light is tinted more violet and thus more efficiently usable for the plants. And I would not count with 20ct/kWh, as they probably pay industrial rates (though I have no idea how much that is over there).
- donquichotte 10y ago
  You're right, industrial rates in Anchorage are around 11ct/kWh. Also, it's possible to use LEDs tuned to the absorbtion spectra of chlorophyll, as you say. If my back of the envelope calculations above are wrong by more than an order of magnitude, it might in fact be a commercially viable option for farming. Is this [1] the Singaporean project you were refering to? They probably don't need heating, but nonetheless their quoted energy needs of 3$/month/structure are astonishingly low. [1] http://permaculturenews.org/2014/07/25/vertical-farming-singapores-solution-feed-local-urban-population/ http://permaculturenews.org/2014/07/25/vertical-farming-sing...
- kw71 10y ago
  A 400W arc lamp plus losses (possibly bringing the total to 600W) was enough to grow 3x3ft. of plants in soil. Plenty of this light was in the green area so not absorbed by plants. I have never seen lima bean plants grow so big or be so productive (4th harvest of the year in december.) I don't want to plant anything outside anymore after this.

Mz 10y ago

To the various critics: A) As someone noted, this is a small town. B) It has a high unemployment rate and it is very remote, so there is both lack of capital and high up front costs. C) It is a tribal culture whose traditional diet is hunter-gatherer based local foods. D) It is so expensive to import produce that this project is already competitive with existing produce prices. The value lies in the fact that it is fresher. They hope to get costs down, this is why they are talking about wind power. I will add that the article only briefly touches on the lack of roads in Alaska. Alaska has something like six times as many pilots per capita as any other state. Due to the extreme weather during the winter, flying is a common form of travel. This adds to the logistical challenges -- and expense -- involved in trying to import new technologies of this scale.