3 ms·

Vertical farms are kind of a crock, kind of. The idea of indoor agriculture is not, however (just look at Thanet Earth), and there is an advantage of building

Vertical farms are kind of a crock, kind of. The idea of indoor agriculture is not, however (just look at Thanet Earth), and there is an advantage of building up a few floors and using grow lights to supplement the loss of passive lighting. A series of low-rise warehouses using hydroponics in the outer rings of a city makes a lot of sense. However, the architectural games people are playing with huge spires in the center of Manhattan, those are ridiculous, and always have been.

ghshephard 16y ago
Can you identify a single instance of economic use of grow lights for agricultural (as opposed to pharmaceutical) purposes? Green Houses (Thanet Earth) are designed to trap the Sun's energy.
- jlgbecom 16y ago
  Using grow lights 100% of the time? No, that's definitely not going to work, unless major gains in efficiency are made. But using led grow lights to supplement passive solar and elongate the grow cycle is what I'm referring to, and designing low-rise greenhouses to capture the sun's energy for the light hours. If you capture excess solar energy, store it, and use it at night, then the energy pull from the grid for night-time grow lights is reduced, and then it's an economic question of cost of energy versus sale potential. I'm not specifically thinking about staple crops (ie, wheat, rice, etc), but supplementary crops like tomatos, lettuce, cucumbers, etc. Mostly, what Thanet Earth is growing.
- Someone 16y ago
  Go visit the Westland in the Netherlands at night, and you will be surprised at what you see. Assisting the sun with artificial lighting is nothing special.
rwhitman 16y ago
I had always thought that the skyscraper version of vertical farming was more of a fantasy technology. Everything real I've seen is focused on what you mention, low-rise warehouses with racks of hydroponics and skylights - making it essentially a robotic greenhouse. I don't see how this is outlandish
- stan_rogers 16y ago
  Perhaps improved lighting would make it more effective and efficient today, but I'm reminded of the Sprung Greenhouse in St. John's, Newfoundland. Now, before anybody gets on the "government involvement is bad" bandwagon, try to keep in mind that Newfoundland has next to no agriculture at all, apart from a few root vegetables (it's a rock that alternates between barren land and impenetrable forest) and has always had to import most of its non-fish foodstuffs. Even given the importation expense, the greenhouse production was incredibly expensive compared to the existing supply chain. Putting production into a building doesn't change external light levels or prevent snow from accumulating on top of the greenhouse (or solar panels, reflector arrays, etc.). Even the wind levels were high enough that safe operation of windmills would have been difficult (sustained wind speeds regularly reach levels where normal turbines would be parked and feathered). Not saying that it can't work, just that it won't be cheap (so it's likely that transportation and ordinary production costs will have to rise quite a bit), it won't be easy in a lot of locations, and it's not a panacea.

ghshephard 16y ago

Can you identify a single instance of economic use of grow lights for agricultural (as opposed to pharmaceutical) purposes? Green Houses (Thanet Earth) are designed to trap the Sun's energy.

jlgbecom 16y ago
Using grow lights 100% of the time? No, that's definitely not going to work, unless major gains in efficiency are made. But using led grow lights to supplement passive solar and elongate the grow cycle is what I'm referring to, and designing low-rise greenhouses to capture the sun's energy for the light hours. If you capture excess solar energy, store it, and use it at night, then the energy pull from the grid for night-time grow lights is reduced, and then it's an economic question of cost of energy versus sale potential. I'm not specifically thinking about staple crops (ie, wheat, rice, etc), but supplementary crops like tomatos, lettuce, cucumbers, etc. Mostly, what Thanet Earth is growing.
Someone 16y ago
Go visit the Westland in the Netherlands at night, and you will be surprised at what you see. Assisting the sun with artificial lighting is nothing special.

rwhitman 16y ago

I had always thought that the skyscraper version of vertical farming was more of a fantasy technology. Everything real I've seen is focused on what you mention, low-rise warehouses with racks of hydroponics and skylights - making it essentially a robotic greenhouse. I don't see how this is outlandish

stan_rogers 16y ago
Perhaps improved lighting would make it more effective and efficient today, but I'm reminded of the Sprung Greenhouse in St. John's, Newfoundland. Now, before anybody gets on the "government involvement is bad" bandwagon, try to keep in mind that Newfoundland has next to no agriculture at all, apart from a few root vegetables (it's a rock that alternates between barren land and impenetrable forest) and has always had to import most of its non-fish foodstuffs. Even given the importation expense, the greenhouse production was incredibly expensive compared to the existing supply chain. Putting production into a building doesn't change external light levels or prevent snow from accumulating on top of the greenhouse (or solar panels, reflector arrays, etc.). Even the wind levels were high enough that safe operation of windmills would have been difficult (sustained wind speeds regularly reach levels where normal turbines would be parked and feathered). Not saying that it can't work, just that it won't be cheap (so it's likely that transportation and ordinary production costs will have to rise quite a bit), it won't be easy in a lot of locations, and it's not a panacea.