5 ms·

"Does the future of farming (something indoors) ?" No. It never will, despite all of the admittedly cool proof-of-concepts. The energy required to photosynthes

"Does the future of farming (something indoors) ?" No. It never will, despite all of the admittedly cool proof-of-concepts. The energy required to photosynthesize will never be more economical from artificial lighting than the sun. The future of farming (in the U.S.) is better soil management, agro-forestry, and removing archaic systems of subsidies which favor corn and beef to the detriment of human and environmental health. Underground crops are cool, but they cannot feed the planet

goda90 7y ago
There are a number of reasons why indoor farming with artificial light could be a necessity. Space colonization, a runaway blight or pest that we can't stop without isolation, something causing large amount of solar radiation blocking particles in the air like nuclear war, a large asteroid impact, or a super volcano. Also crops that need very specific conditions to grow might not do well as our climate shifts, and growing in a carefully controlled indoor farm could fill demand, though at a high cost.
- squish78 7y ago
  Ok I can concede that if 99% of the global population disappears or we have to evacuate the planet, this would be reasonable
thinkcontext 7y ago
I agree the artificial light makes this uneconomical for most crops. There is an argument for premium greens: - They can be harvested and then delivered to the customer the same day, some places will pay for this type of high end service - Indoor crops grow quicker than outdoor ones due to the optimized conditions. For already fast growing crops like greens that means you can have more harvests per year. - Being able to be located in a densely populated area greatly expands the labor pool - Vastly improved labor conditions by virtue of being indoors and not bending over to the ground all day
- squish78 7y ago
  I agree it's a nice luxury product for urban upper-middle class. Hardly the future of farming for the rest of the world though.
avsteele 7y ago
It doesn't need to be more economical than outdoor growing is right now to be viable. We are already using of a large fraction of the arable land that is well suited to outdoor grain cultivation. It isn't clear that yields can be increased enough to feed people as we approach peak Earth population. Indoor growing allows for an extension of agriculture to new land. Efficient Climate control, combined with high efficiency LEDs with optimized output spectra make the concept more viable. It will be more expensive than current outdoor-based agriculture, but we'll be wealthier by the time this is needed.
0000011111 7y ago
Nonsolar farming may not be able to feed 9 billion people. However, they are great for specialty crops that require lab testing for purity and quality before being sold to the general public. These include crops like cannabis and mushrooms. In the state of California alone there are nearly 40 million people. That is a big enough market to support allot of firms. ~O There is a hudge market for
kempbellt 7y ago
Just to play devil's advocate. What about in places where electrical energy is abundant, and space is limited? Or maybe in locations where terrain is very difficult to farm on. Mountainous terrain provides a lot of potential hydro-power, but are terrible places to place farms. Would a dam powered multi-storied indoor farm be a feasible solution in a situation like this? Not to mention, it could provide light 24/7. Not being facetious here. Genuinely curious what the pros and cons would be to a farm designed this way.
- squish78 7y ago
  How much are you willing to pay for a head of lettuce? I have no idea about the logistics or costs for building hydro-electric indoor multi-storied farms on mountainsides, but it sounds like many millions of dollars. I think a more realistic approach to mountain farming would be what Sepp Holzer does in the Austrian Alps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMXqgQIU9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMXqgQIU9c
dekhn 7y ago
solar panels + LEDs is more efficient than direct sunlight because the panels absorb in a wide frequency range and then the LEDs only emit at the wavelength required for photosynthesis. This is a very recent development and it's barely an improvement over outside growing due to overhead costs.
- squish78 7y ago
  How much would it cost to cover 100 acres with LEDs?
  - dekhn 7y ago
    see my comment about overhead costs. However there are a number of interesting details: since with LEDs you can stack plants vertically, the horizontal area is less important. You can also keep things more compact (plants in a field aren't particularly dense) with light coming in at multiple angles leading to bushier plants with more growable surface area. I guess the real question is, "what are the amortized costs of growing using solar panels and LEDs compared to fields", and that's a super hard problem to solve/estimate. So far, people have only been growing high-profit crops, so it seems like the economics don't favor interior growing yet even for well-heeled players.
    - 14 7y ago
      There are massive benefits to growing indoors in certain conditions. Areas that were previously too hot or too cold could now be used to grow provided you have access to power. I one day think we will have portable nuclear generators and don't think this will be an issue. I don't think it will be economical in every situation but I do think there will be some market for indoor crops. The other factor I think of with indoor crops is with artificial you can optimize it both intensity and duration for different crops so you can also grow a bigger variety of crops in areas previously not possible. What if we could grow almonds closer to an abundant water source, or peppers in the frigid north closer to the people who eat them instead of shipping them large distances.
- imtringued 7y ago
ryanmarsh 7y ago
Came here to say this. On it's face the idea of generating enough electricity to produce enough of the right wavelengths of light (including the infrastructure and bulbs) to grow vegetables is flat out fucking preposterous given the giant nuclear reaction happening right now in the sky. Cannabis growers don't use grow lights in doors because it's more efficient. Sunlight, is the least of a farmer's worries.
jnurmine 7y ago
I think that even without revolutionizing stagnated practises in the US, some points are in favor of indoor farming. Also, indoor farming might never be able to reach the same levels of food overproduction there is today using open fields etc., but I think there are other considerations which make indoor farming desireable. Firstly, geography: there are places with somewhat long periods of darkness and/or cold, where agriculture is feasible only during the relatively short, but often intense, summer season. For example mid-to-northern parts of the Nordics. Indoor farming can deliver throughout the year. Secondly, logistics/sustainability/locality: it's more sustainable to farm locally than to transport something from the other end of the world, or even from the other side of the country. I've seen onions from New Zealand in the shops here in the Nordics and it's probably normal but I thought it was downright weird. Thirdly, organic farming: by being able to control the growth environment, the amount of pesticides and insecticides should be greatly reduced, maybe even down to nothing. Fourthly, the known-unknown future: an ongoing major change in climate will likely make some of the nowadays arable land non-arable. For example rising sea levels threaten rice production in low areas of Asia, and so on. Dr. Gwynne Dyer spoke (in "Geopolitics in a Hotter World") of a rule of thumb where one degree (Celsius) rise in average global temperatures loses 10% of global food production. If we expect over 3 degrees then one third of global food production will be gone. Maybe that's OK if the world becomes better in logistics, but I think the key is to grow locally and indoor farming is possible basically anywhere.
vanilla-almond 7y ago
The video never makes the claim that underground farming will replace conventional farming. In fact, the owner even acknowledges that underground farming is only suitable for some crops and not others. Many people are commenting about how wasteful it is to use LEDs instead of sunlight. But again, as the owner says in the video, consumers expect produce all year round. That might not be possible in winter or poor light. The alternative is to import out-of-season food from abroad. Or to return to eating seasonal produce only. How many consumers are willing to accept that? Not many I'm guessing. Also, the owner of the farm states he saves over 70% water use over conventional farming. That's a massive saving. So yes, underground farming won't solve the world's food problems but it seems like it could play a role alongside conventional farming. There is one thing missing from the video though: What do the crops taste like?
SomeOldThrow 7y ago
You can redirect light with mirrors too.
waste_monk 7y ago
> The energy required to photosynthesize will never be more economical from artificial lighting than the sun What about capturing and redirecting natural light, to replace or supplement the grow lights? I've seen "light well" systems that direct natural light around the building using mirrors and tubes (e.g. in office buildings to decrease lighting costs and combat seasonal affective disorder), so this seems like a natural extension of that concept.
jsilence 7y ago
This! A hundred times! I especially loathe articles that state near the end that energy consumption currently is quite high, but that they are working on optimizing that. You can not optimize your system out of the hard dependency between photons and photosynthesis. Period.

goda90 7y ago

There are a number of reasons why indoor farming with artificial light could be a necessity. Space colonization, a runaway blight or pest that we can't stop without isolation, something causing large amount of solar radiation blocking particles in the air like nuclear war, a large asteroid impact, or a super volcano. Also crops that need very specific conditions to grow might not do well as our climate shifts, and growing in a carefully controlled indoor farm could fill demand, though at a high cost.

squish78 7y ago
Ok I can concede that if 99% of the global population disappears or we have to evacuate the planet, this would be reasonable

thinkcontext 7y ago

I agree the artificial light makes this uneconomical for most crops. There is an argument for premium greens: - They can be harvested and then delivered to the customer the same day, some places will pay for this type of high end service - Indoor crops grow quicker than outdoor ones due to the optimized conditions. For already fast growing crops like greens that means you can have more harvests per year. - Being able to be located in a densely populated area greatly expands the labor pool - Vastly improved labor conditions by virtue of being indoors and not bending over to the ground all day

squish78 7y ago
I agree it's a nice luxury product for urban upper-middle class. Hardly the future of farming for the rest of the world though.

avsteele 7y ago

It doesn't need to be more economical than outdoor growing is right now to be viable. We are already using of a large fraction of the arable land that is well suited to outdoor grain cultivation. It isn't clear that yields can be increased enough to feed people as we approach peak Earth population. Indoor growing allows for an extension of agriculture to new land. Efficient Climate control, combined with high efficiency LEDs with optimized output spectra make the concept more viable. It will be more expensive than current outdoor-based agriculture, but we'll be wealthier by the time this is needed.

0000011111 7y ago

Nonsolar farming may not be able to feed 9 billion people. However, they are great for specialty crops that require lab testing for purity and quality before being sold to the general public. These include crops like cannabis and mushrooms. In the state of California alone there are nearly 40 million people. That is a big enough market to support allot of firms. ~O There is a hudge market for

kempbellt 7y ago

Just to play devil's advocate. What about in places where electrical energy is abundant, and space is limited? Or maybe in locations where terrain is very difficult to farm on. Mountainous terrain provides a lot of potential hydro-power, but are terrible places to place farms. Would a dam powered multi-storied indoor farm be a feasible solution in a situation like this? Not to mention, it could provide light 24/7. Not being facetious here. Genuinely curious what the pros and cons would be to a farm designed this way.

squish78 7y ago
How much are you willing to pay for a head of lettuce? I have no idea about the logistics or costs for building hydro-electric indoor multi-storied farms on mountainsides, but it sounds like many millions of dollars. I think a more realistic approach to mountain farming would be what Sepp Holzer does in the Austrian Alps. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMXqgQIU9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GMXqgQIU9c

dekhn 7y ago

solar panels + LEDs is more efficient than direct sunlight because the panels absorb in a wide frequency range and then the LEDs only emit at the wavelength required for photosynthesis. This is a very recent development and it's barely an improvement over outside growing due to overhead costs.

squish78 7y ago
How much would it cost to cover 100 acres with LEDs?
- dekhn 7y ago
  see my comment about overhead costs. However there are a number of interesting details: since with LEDs you can stack plants vertically, the horizontal area is less important. You can also keep things more compact (plants in a field aren't particularly dense) with light coming in at multiple angles leading to bushier plants with more growable surface area. I guess the real question is, "what are the amortized costs of growing using solar panels and LEDs compared to fields", and that's a super hard problem to solve/estimate. So far, people have only been growing high-profit crops, so it seems like the economics don't favor interior growing yet even for well-heeled players.
  - 14 7y ago
    There are massive benefits to growing indoors in certain conditions. Areas that were previously too hot or too cold could now be used to grow provided you have access to power. I one day think we will have portable nuclear generators and don't think this will be an issue. I don't think it will be economical in every situation but I do think there will be some market for indoor crops. The other factor I think of with indoor crops is with artificial you can optimize it both intensity and duration for different crops so you can also grow a bigger variety of crops in areas previously not possible. What if we could grow almonds closer to an abundant water source, or peppers in the frigid north closer to the people who eat them instead of shipping them large distances.
imtringued 7y ago

ryanmarsh 7y ago

Came here to say this. On it's face the idea of generating enough electricity to produce enough of the right wavelengths of light (including the infrastructure and bulbs) to grow vegetables is flat out fucking preposterous given the giant nuclear reaction happening right now in the sky. Cannabis growers don't use grow lights in doors because it's more efficient. Sunlight, is the least of a farmer's worries.

jnurmine 7y ago

I think that even without revolutionizing stagnated practises in the US, some points are in favor of indoor farming. Also, indoor farming might never be able to reach the same levels of food overproduction there is today using open fields etc., but I think there are other considerations which make indoor farming desireable. Firstly, geography: there are places with somewhat long periods of darkness and/or cold, where agriculture is feasible only during the relatively short, but often intense, summer season. For example mid-to-northern parts of the Nordics. Indoor farming can deliver throughout the year. Secondly, logistics/sustainability/locality: it's more sustainable to farm locally than to transport something from the other end of the world, or even from the other side of the country. I've seen onions from New Zealand in the shops here in the Nordics and it's probably normal but I thought it was downright weird. Thirdly, organic farming: by being able to control the growth environment, the amount of pesticides and insecticides should be greatly reduced, maybe even down to nothing. Fourthly, the known-unknown future: an ongoing major change in climate will likely make some of the nowadays arable land non-arable. For example rising sea levels threaten rice production in low areas of Asia, and so on. Dr. Gwynne Dyer spoke (in "Geopolitics in a Hotter World") of a rule of thumb where one degree (Celsius) rise in average global temperatures loses 10% of global food production. If we expect over 3 degrees then one third of global food production will be gone. Maybe that's OK if the world becomes better in logistics, but I think the key is to grow locally and indoor farming is possible basically anywhere.

vanilla-almond 7y ago

The video never makes the claim that underground farming will replace conventional farming. In fact, the owner even acknowledges that underground farming is only suitable for some crops and not others. Many people are commenting about how wasteful it is to use LEDs instead of sunlight. But again, as the owner says in the video, consumers expect produce all year round. That might not be possible in winter or poor light. The alternative is to import out-of-season food from abroad. Or to return to eating seasonal produce only. How many consumers are willing to accept that? Not many I'm guessing. Also, the owner of the farm states he saves over 70% water use over conventional farming. That's a massive saving. So yes, underground farming won't solve the world's food problems but it seems like it could play a role alongside conventional farming. There is one thing missing from the video though: What do the crops taste like?

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

You can redirect light with mirrors too.

waste_monk 7y ago

> The energy required to photosynthesize will never be more economical from artificial lighting than the sun What about capturing and redirecting natural light, to replace or supplement the grow lights? I've seen "light well" systems that direct natural light around the building using mirrors and tubes (e.g. in office buildings to decrease lighting costs and combat seasonal affective disorder), so this seems like a natural extension of that concept.

jsilence 7y ago

This! A hundred times! I especially loathe articles that state near the end that energy consumption currently is quite high, but that they are working on optimizing that. You can not optimize your system out of the hard dependency between photons and photosynthesis. Period.