3 ms·
In the end you need just too much collection area - more than the square footage of each floor put side to side. It's easier to put the 'collection area' somew
by _rpd 8y ago
In the end you need just too much collection area - more than the square footage of each floor put side to side. It's easier to put the 'collection area' somewhere remote as solar panels and bring in the light as electricity. The energy cost isn't that big a deal compared to the labor cost.
- jsilence 8y agoin our model calculations the energy costs are in the same ballpark like labour. thus energy costs are the main culprit. transporting "the light" from elsewhere to the crop has a ~90% loss (20% - 25% solar efficiency times transport losses of 20% times LED efficiency of 40% - 50%). so you need ten times the area elsewhere to be space efficient on a premium priced area. also viewed from crop product pricing the economics simply don't add up. there are much more profitable things you can do on urban real estate. (I'm working in the field of agricultural economics)
- yorwba 8y agoOthers (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17467755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17467755) have highlighted that plants only use a few specific wavelengths. Have you included that in your calculations, i.e. are you comparing (sunlight -> electricity -> LED at optimal wavelength -> photosynthesis at that wavelength) vs. (sunlight -> photosynthesis)?
- imtringued 8y agoWhat is the benefit of vertical farming if you need to occupy 10x more land with solar panels than conventional farming?
- logfromblammo 8y agoSolar panels don't require as much water.