5 ms·

As for vertical farming, there is an interesting video debunking it by some professor of agriculture. In essence it boils down to the fact that the 1000w of lig

As for vertical farming, there is an interesting video debunking it by some professor of agriculture. In essence it boils down to the fact that the 1000w of light applied per square meter by the sun dwarfs all of the other inputs. Unless we suddenly gain some form of near unlimited clean energy it doesn't make sense (except for some very limited circumstances like expensive micro-greens for classy restaurants)

Bootwizard 7y ago
Would solar farms help mitigate the cost of running these vertical farms in any meaningful way?
- Retric 7y ago
  Using current tech, you end up using more land gathering solar power as you gain back by going vertical. On top of that you need to pay for incredible amounts of solar panels.
- bluGill 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency In theory we can get a lot of efficiency by converting wavelengths plants cannot use wavelengths plants can use. However after accounting for all the system losses it is really hard to make up the difference. This assumes too that you use the best available solar panels, which are generally only in labs, real world solar installations are generally less efficient (just the chlorophyll vs solar cell number). Most of the losses in photosynthesis still exist either way as well.
gruez 7y ago
>there is an interesting video debunking it by some professor of agriculture Link? Not doubting your claim, just thought it would be interesting to watch.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago
  This was the one I was thinking of: https://youtu.be/ISAKc9gpGjw https://youtu.be/ISAKc9gpGjw
- duckymcduckface 7y ago
  I think OP is referring to Bruce Bugbee from Utah state https://youtu.be/ISAKc9gpGjw https://youtu.be/ISAKc9gpGjw Even if it isn't him the conclusion is the same.
Retric 7y ago
That’s very true for calorie dense foods like wheat, potatoes, rice, etc. It’s less so for other plants like lettuce which have a short lifespan, don’t store or transport well, and have significant risks for contamination as they are eaten raw. Essentially vertical farms would be limited to 0.01% of food production, but could be profitable.
- nradov 7y ago
  Lettuce stores and transports well enough. In 1919 farmers in Salinas, CA started shipping lettuce on ice via rail to the east coast.
  - chabes 7y ago
    I stumbled across some interesting history related to this when doing a research paper in college. Basically, because of a huge apple crop failure in the Santa Clara Valley, as well as having recently laid railroad crossing the area (this was in the 1800’s), apple growers in the Pajaro Valley (between Santa Clara and Salinas) began shipping their apples to markets farther away than usual. This eventually boomed into a global scale thing, with Pajaro Valley apples being sold in New York, then London, and even places like South Africa. After developing a successful global distribution model, growers in Washington state took notice. Apples were shipped on northern rail lines after the growing season in Fall. No ice needed. Soon, other industries followed (Salinas Valley lettuce included). This blossomed into the global food system we know today. Tl;dr: Money in proto-silicon valley was used to start up the global food system
  - yissp 7y ago
    Didn't work out so well for Adam Trask :)
hawski 7y ago
Near noon sun is angled closer to 90°, but in higher latitudes it's a lower angle. For example at noon it's 60° on first day of summer in Berlin and 30° at 7am when it's at 0° east. So it may be possible to have a building that would be longer on EW axis and narrower on NS axis. With possible shift for every floor allowing some flexibility. Is it all for nothing? I imagine such building could be closer to city centers, but would have to face sun at premium. Maybe even integrated with regular buildings from south side?
squish78 7y ago
I think these experiments are meaningful and fascinating for research purposes, but they will never be more efficient than nature. The solution to food security is not to re-engineer the farm, but to return food production to people, because the most dangerous thing we can do is to consolidate our food production into the hands of a few ag-tech corporations. Granted, I'm talking about a cultural shift and you can't force people to enjoy gardening, but there are some people who are doing incredible experiments in urban farming which is still mostly low-tech. Even though he is an extreme example, Rob Greenfield shows what is possible with a typical 1/8 acre city/suburban lot. He is currently experimenting with growing/foraging 100% of his diet in a city. http://robgreenfield.tv/foodfreedom/ http://robgreenfield.tv/foodfreedom/ The biggest shift will be to convince people that turfgrass lawns are the one of the biggest waste of resources in the modern world, and a silly cultural relic.
- goda90 7y ago
  Gardening is great, but you can't get your full diet from a suburban sized lot. No matter what, big staple food farms will be needed.
  - ph0rque 7y ago
    Depending on what you mean by a suburban-sized lot... here's my blog post on complete nutrition from plants, eggs, and fish (all of which can be grown/raised on a typical lot): https://automicrofarm.com/blog/2018/08/complete-nutrition-no-mammal.html https://automicrofarm.com/blog/2018/08/complete-nutrition-no...
    - goda90 7y ago
      And how much space do you need to grow all of that for 2 people for 365 days in a year considering that only some of it can grow year round in many places.
      - ph0rque 7y ago
        To grow year-round, you would need to have a greenhouse in a lot of climates. (I'm working on a blog post to answer the space needed question.)
jsilence 7y ago
Prof.Bugbee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw

Bootwizard 7y ago

Would solar farms help mitigate the cost of running these vertical farms in any meaningful way?

Retric 7y ago
Using current tech, you end up using more land gathering solar power as you gain back by going vertical. On top of that you need to pay for incredible amounts of solar panels.
bluGill 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency In theory we can get a lot of efficiency by converting wavelengths plants cannot use wavelengths plants can use. However after accounting for all the system losses it is really hard to make up the difference. This assumes too that you use the best available solar panels, which are generally only in labs, real world solar installations are generally less efficient (just the chlorophyll vs solar cell number). Most of the losses in photosynthesis still exist either way as well.

gruez 7y ago

>there is an interesting video debunking it by some professor of agriculture Link? Not doubting your claim, just thought it would be interesting to watch.

VBprogrammer 7y ago
This was the one I was thinking of: https://youtu.be/ISAKc9gpGjw https://youtu.be/ISAKc9gpGjw
duckymcduckface 7y ago
I think OP is referring to Bruce Bugbee from Utah state https://youtu.be/ISAKc9gpGjw https://youtu.be/ISAKc9gpGjw Even if it isn't him the conclusion is the same.

Retric 7y ago

That’s very true for calorie dense foods like wheat, potatoes, rice, etc. It’s less so for other plants like lettuce which have a short lifespan, don’t store or transport well, and have significant risks for contamination as they are eaten raw. Essentially vertical farms would be limited to 0.01% of food production, but could be profitable.

nradov 7y ago
Lettuce stores and transports well enough. In 1919 farmers in Salinas, CA started shipping lettuce on ice via rail to the east coast.
- chabes 7y ago
  I stumbled across some interesting history related to this when doing a research paper in college. Basically, because of a huge apple crop failure in the Santa Clara Valley, as well as having recently laid railroad crossing the area (this was in the 1800’s), apple growers in the Pajaro Valley (between Santa Clara and Salinas) began shipping their apples to markets farther away than usual. This eventually boomed into a global scale thing, with Pajaro Valley apples being sold in New York, then London, and even places like South Africa. After developing a successful global distribution model, growers in Washington state took notice. Apples were shipped on northern rail lines after the growing season in Fall. No ice needed. Soon, other industries followed (Salinas Valley lettuce included). This blossomed into the global food system we know today. Tl;dr: Money in proto-silicon valley was used to start up the global food system
- yissp 7y ago
  Didn't work out so well for Adam Trask :)

hawski 7y ago

Near noon sun is angled closer to 90°, but in higher latitudes it's a lower angle. For example at noon it's 60° on first day of summer in Berlin and 30° at 7am when it's at 0° east. So it may be possible to have a building that would be longer on EW axis and narrower on NS axis. With possible shift for every floor allowing some flexibility. Is it all for nothing? I imagine such building could be closer to city centers, but would have to face sun at premium. Maybe even integrated with regular buildings from south side?

squish78 7y ago

I think these experiments are meaningful and fascinating for research purposes, but they will never be more efficient than nature. The solution to food security is not to re-engineer the farm, but to return food production to people, because the most dangerous thing we can do is to consolidate our food production into the hands of a few ag-tech corporations. Granted, I'm talking about a cultural shift and you can't force people to enjoy gardening, but there are some people who are doing incredible experiments in urban farming which is still mostly low-tech. Even though he is an extreme example, Rob Greenfield shows what is possible with a typical 1/8 acre city/suburban lot. He is currently experimenting with growing/foraging 100% of his diet in a city. http://robgreenfield.tv/foodfreedom/ http://robgreenfield.tv/foodfreedom/ The biggest shift will be to convince people that turfgrass lawns are the one of the biggest waste of resources in the modern world, and a silly cultural relic.

goda90 7y ago
Gardening is great, but you can't get your full diet from a suburban sized lot. No matter what, big staple food farms will be needed.
- ph0rque 7y ago
  Depending on what you mean by a suburban-sized lot... here's my blog post on complete nutrition from plants, eggs, and fish (all of which can be grown/raised on a typical lot): https://automicrofarm.com/blog/2018/08/complete-nutrition-no-mammal.html https://automicrofarm.com/blog/2018/08/complete-nutrition-no...
  - goda90 7y ago
    And how much space do you need to grow all of that for 2 people for 365 days in a year considering that only some of it can grow year round in many places.
    - ph0rque 7y ago
      To grow year-round, you would need to have a greenhouse in a lot of climates. (I'm working on a blog post to answer the space needed question.)

jsilence 7y ago

Prof.Bugbee. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw