3 ms·

I'm not talking about every family having their own little "plot" on their own little roof. I'm talking about large greenhouses covering large buildings.

by namuol 8y ago

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Still doesn't work? It takes 300-400 sq ft of greenhouse per person to feed them. An apt house roof could feed how many? 20? 50? And 2000 people may live in that building. Make the building taller, now 3000 people life there, and the greenhouse is no larger. That's what 'not scaling' looks like. We have commercial farming because it takes that to feed us.
- namuol 8y ago
  Who said anything about eliminating all large-scale rural farms? (And FWIW what I imagine would still very much be commercial farming) Even barring any future innovation in city planning (better distribution of sunlight, etc), architecture (tiered building design, whatever), and agriculture (crops optimized for greenhouses), we would still benefit from growing food on rooftops, so why wouldn't we? Oh and by the way, you can use electricity (realistically from a mix of renewable and nuclear power) to keep "sunlight" on in your greenhouses; they don't need to be on rooftops. I don't disagree that it doesn't scale vertically nearly as obviously as it does horizontally, but why make perfect be the enemy of better?
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Its hard enough to keep roofs watertight. Add wet soil for months at a time and the corrosion, leaking, mold etc become a problem. If you want a farm, put it on a farm. If you want a solar generator, put it in a clean well-lighted place. All this hybridization (rooftop farming, solar roads etc) is not sound engineering.
    - namuol 8y ago
      Every problem you describe sounds like a solvable engineering problem. We may need to design our buildings to accommodate these kinds of problems, but that doesn't mean they should be dismissed outright -- The potential energy benefits are substantial. It takes a just a small leap of imagination; we're not talking about magic. If you take anything away from this discussion, let it be this: > [Climate change effects] threaten future gains in commodity crop production and put rural livelihoods at risk. Numerous adaptation strategies are available to cope with adverse impacts of climate variability and change on agricultural production. These include altering what is produced, modifying the inputs used for production, adopting new technologies [emphasis mine], and adjusting management strategies. [1] [1] https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/#sf-10 https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/#sf-10
      - glibgil 8y ago
        You can't grow food on buildings
      - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
        If the cost for food goes up precipitously (e.g. lots of engineering needed to get modest amounts) then people will starve. Lots of people. That's my takeaway

I'm not talking about every family having their own little "plot" on their own little roof. I'm talking about large greenhouses covering large buildings.

by namuol 8y ago

I'm not talking about every family having their own little "plot" on their own little roof. I'm talking about large greenhouses covering large buildings.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Still doesn't work? It takes 300-400 sq ft of greenhouse per person to feed them. An apt house roof could feed how many? 20? 50? And 2000 people may live in that building. Make the building taller, now 3000 people life there, and the greenhouse is no larger. That's what 'not scaling' looks like. We have commercial farming because it takes that to feed us.

namuol 8y ago
Who said anything about eliminating all large-scale rural farms? (And FWIW what I imagine would still very much be commercial farming) Even barring any future innovation in city planning (better distribution of sunlight, etc), architecture (tiered building design, whatever), and agriculture (crops optimized for greenhouses), we would still benefit from growing food on rooftops, so why wouldn't we? Oh and by the way, you can use electricity (realistically from a mix of renewable and nuclear power) to keep "sunlight" on in your greenhouses; they don't need to be on rooftops. I don't disagree that it doesn't scale vertically nearly as obviously as it does horizontally, but why make perfect be the enemy of better?
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Its hard enough to keep roofs watertight. Add wet soil for months at a time and the corrosion, leaking, mold etc become a problem. If you want a farm, put it on a farm. If you want a solar generator, put it in a clean well-lighted place. All this hybridization (rooftop farming, solar roads etc) is not sound engineering.
  - namuol 8y ago
    Every problem you describe sounds like a solvable engineering problem. We may need to design our buildings to accommodate these kinds of problems, but that doesn't mean they should be dismissed outright -- The potential energy benefits are substantial. It takes a just a small leap of imagination; we're not talking about magic. If you take anything away from this discussion, let it be this: > [Climate change effects] threaten future gains in commodity crop production and put rural livelihoods at risk. Numerous adaptation strategies are available to cope with adverse impacts of climate variability and change on agricultural production. These include altering what is produced, modifying the inputs used for production, adopting new technologies [emphasis mine], and adjusting management strategies. [1] [1] https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/#sf-10 https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/#sf-10
    - glibgil 8y ago
      You can't grow food on buildings
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      If the cost for food goes up precipitously (e.g. lots of engineering needed to get modest amounts) then people will starve. Lots of people. That's my takeaway