4 ms·

A model of farming is capturing the sun's energy in the grown produce. This is why farming takes so much land: to get more of the sun. Growing in warehouses o

A model of farming is capturing the sun's energy in the grown produce. This is why farming takes so much land: to get more of the sun. Growing in warehouses or vertically forces you to substitute the sun with artificial lights: even if those are powered by the sun, there's a huge loss of energy in the system, hence increased cost.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago
Are you sure? Growing produce remotely has additional inherent costs that don't exist in vertical farms, such as wasted water, the need for very heavy machinery, the issue of transporting and transporting within certain timeframes. The last 2 problems include the cost of oil/gasoline, and the maintenance of a whole array of systems, from oil extraction pipelines to road maintenance. This, to me, sounds like vertical farms in the grand scheme could be more efficient.
- gtvwill 6y ago
  Go set up a artificial growth environment and try run it for a cycle longer than a month. It takes huge amounts of resources to maintain that environment. And no it's not chemical free. Also yes water is used and wasted. If you ain't doing bulk washing your applying huge amounts of product to keep algae blooms out of your systems. Try run that environment for a year. I give it 2-3 month before your first insect/pest bloom. Less if your unlucky. An I'd be blown away if you fix your first pest bloom the first try. Vertical farms are sick on paper...that ignores masses of requirements to actually get the task done.
  - cevn 6y ago
    Very true. I have an aerogarden setup and best way to use it is to swap the plants into real ground and do a fresh clean after they've grown for a few months, otherwise gnats / fungus will take over. It also seems to require much more water than watering the plants in ground, I assume because they are getting maximum rate from roots and almost infinitely growing them .
    - gtvwill 6y ago
      Geez into High Pressure Aeroponics if the water efficiency thing interests you. Its also somewhat easier to keep clean as you only feed the plants the water they can consume (literally a single droplet of condensation in your root chambers DTW outlet means your feeding too much). On the downside the setup is hard as it gets, 145+psi water system, impinge nozzles with .4mm diameter outlets (means your nutes gotta be particulate free). But the efficiency of it is the ultimate in closed environment growth. For bugs in a greenhouse the least chemical method i've found is dumping c02. Can only use it in closed/controlled spaces tho. Blanket room in c02 for 12 hrs...literally just chokes any bugs. Plants are fine.
    - muttled 6y ago
      I had the same experience. The biggest thing for me was keeping it clean was a gigantic pain. The plants would get massive with tons of leaves that would fall down inside plant and start breaking down on top of the plastic. In soil, that just breaks down and becomes more dirt.
  - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
    Thanks for going in detail as to why it is severely impractical and inefficient, all the items you listed are overlooked or outright ignored in the discussions I have read, as you probably guessed I am way out of my field. In your opinion, what's the main bottleneck wrt to resources?
    - gtvwill 6y ago
      Eh the problem with resources is not using systems that are a closed loop for the whole cycle. e.g. Currently most vert farms or greenhouses buy in all their seed and nutrient and alot of the time grow medium too. Its wasteful just in the nature of it, you can't recycle those parts, your not producing them so you drain them from somewhere else. What I would love to see is hybrid broad acre/high density greenhouse farms. I'm leaning towards productions suited for my region for this example, it would require tailoring to each regions climates/capacities if you were to do this everywhere. On the broad acre you essentially would do native grasses/root vegetables/shrub crops and runs of more traditional mono crops in dispersed amongst heavily Wooded paddocks. like 30-40% tree cover,30-40% perennial natives, 20-30% rotated mono-crop runs. You need to not stress the land too much where I am, and work with the droughts that come through (Australia). The whole goal of the broad acre is to produce a little food buffer but mostly material for nutrient creation. So maybe you harvest/cut your native grasses a few times a year, bail it, inoculate it with fungi to eat it and convert it to a higher nutrient product for fertilizer if your running soil greenhouses. Or you could use mulched grasses to run a snail farm, that in turn feeds a aquaculture setup which you can strip the fish shit out of for nutes to supply your high density vert farm. Having the broad acre allows you to do other things too like maintain bee hives which can be brought into the greenhouse for pollinating. Huge amounts of resources/capital required to set closed loops like this up...but on the plus side...once their setup, if you do things right like use high grade materials(e.g stainless for all your greenhouse piping/water setup) it can last for near infinite time with correct maintenance. Just good luck getting a investor who gets profit @ 10-20 year mark rather than 6-12 months. Market doesn't seem to like long games these days even if it is whats probably best for environment/long term sustainable high density farming. Oh and also we need a robot that can pick fruit/veg and do maintenance that requires dexterity (think unscrewing a nozzle or pipe fitting). Bad. Labor is a killer for broad acre tree crops and stuff that requires a bit of dexterity for harvest (see Australia's current farm labor shortage).
- dr_orpheus 6y ago
  A relevant previous submission to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25554941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25554941 The article linked presented the the efficiency of vertical farming in terms of produce/area. But as was pointed out in some of the comments on that article the cost of the greens grown on vertical farms was in the range of $15/pound [1]. Which is about 3x the price of organic greens at Whole Foods, or 10x the price of what you would find at Walmart. [1] https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531192/vertical-farming-agriculture-hydroponic-greens https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531192/vertical-farming-agr...
TT3351 6y ago
>Growing in warehouses or vertically forces you to substitute the sun with artificial lights Couldn't one construct pylons outdoors for planting? I don't see why it wouldn't work if you constructed it narrower at each successive plant height. Some indoor vertical farming I've seen rotates the entire vertical structure, necessitating only one light facing a section of the column. I would expect this kind of rotation might help outdoors as well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- stretchcat 6y ago
  One constraint to keep in mind is how quickly and efficiently the field can be harvested. If you're talking about a crop that is harvested by hand then this isn't really a factor. But if you're trying to grow a crop that is usually mechanically harvested, you have to compete with that efficiency with machines of your own that are compatible with the structure of your farm (or content yourself with selling luxury produce priced for the wealthy.)
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Converting a field into a solar farm so that you can power artificial lights to grow plants is indeed not exactly ideal... But there are also energy and cost savings because you can remove most of the transport, which at the moment involves ICE vehicles, and the energy does not have to come from solar sources (just within renewables there are other options). Longer term we can also imagine artificial lights powered by fusion power, which would probably be the best option in term of space saving and environmental impact.
- robocat 6y ago
  In theory a solar cell could also absorb wavelengths that plants can’t/don’t use (infrared, green, ultraviolet) and emit the ideal spectrum for chlorophyll a/b to absorb. If the efficiency could be [radically] improved then more could be grown per unit area of solar cells than could be under the sun when naturally farmed. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Biology/ligabs.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Biology/ligabs.ht... Edit: note the reason that most plants are green is because their growth is not limited by the amount of sunlight converted, so they can afford to throw away some efficiency e.g. they might be limited by water or mineral availability. Quote from same site: “Some plants and plantlike organisms have developed other pigments to compensate for low light or poor use of light. Cyanobacteria and red algae have phycocyanin and allophycocyanin as accessory pigments to absorbe orange light. They also have a red pigment called phycoerythrin that absorbs green light and extends the range of photosynthesis. The red pigment lycopene is found in vegetables. Some red algae are in fact nearly black, so that increases their photosynthetic efficiency. Brown algae have the pigment fucoxanthin in addition to chlorophyll to widen their absorption range. These red and brown algae grow to depths around 270 meters where the light is less than 1% of surface light.” Edit 2: plant photosynthetic efficiency in capturing CO2 as sugars: “the theoretical efficiency is 114/381 or 30%. Remarkably, Moore, et al. report that 25% has been achieved under laboratory conditions. The top efficiency they reported under natural growing conditions was the winter-evening primrose growing in Death Valley at 8%”
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    > If the efficiency could be [radically] improved then more could be grown per unit area of solar cells than could be under the sun when naturally farmed. That's a big 'if', though, considering that you'd need to offset both the land taken up by the solar panels and the losses of the electricity transmission.
mortehu 6y ago
Plants reflect and diffuse most sunlight, and we can make lamps that only emit wavelengths that are suitable for photosynthesis. Doesn't this complicate the model a bit?

PartiallyTyped 6y ago

Are you sure? Growing produce remotely has additional inherent costs that don't exist in vertical farms, such as wasted water, the need for very heavy machinery, the issue of transporting and transporting within certain timeframes. The last 2 problems include the cost of oil/gasoline, and the maintenance of a whole array of systems, from oil extraction pipelines to road maintenance. This, to me, sounds like vertical farms in the grand scheme could be more efficient.

gtvwill 6y ago
Go set up a artificial growth environment and try run it for a cycle longer than a month. It takes huge amounts of resources to maintain that environment. And no it's not chemical free. Also yes water is used and wasted. If you ain't doing bulk washing your applying huge amounts of product to keep algae blooms out of your systems. Try run that environment for a year. I give it 2-3 month before your first insect/pest bloom. Less if your unlucky. An I'd be blown away if you fix your first pest bloom the first try. Vertical farms are sick on paper...that ignores masses of requirements to actually get the task done.
- cevn 6y ago
  Very true. I have an aerogarden setup and best way to use it is to swap the plants into real ground and do a fresh clean after they've grown for a few months, otherwise gnats / fungus will take over. It also seems to require much more water than watering the plants in ground, I assume because they are getting maximum rate from roots and almost infinitely growing them .
  - gtvwill 6y ago
    Geez into High Pressure Aeroponics if the water efficiency thing interests you. Its also somewhat easier to keep clean as you only feed the plants the water they can consume (literally a single droplet of condensation in your root chambers DTW outlet means your feeding too much). On the downside the setup is hard as it gets, 145+psi water system, impinge nozzles with .4mm diameter outlets (means your nutes gotta be particulate free). But the efficiency of it is the ultimate in closed environment growth. For bugs in a greenhouse the least chemical method i've found is dumping c02. Can only use it in closed/controlled spaces tho. Blanket room in c02 for 12 hrs...literally just chokes any bugs. Plants are fine.
  - muttled 6y ago
    I had the same experience. The biggest thing for me was keeping it clean was a gigantic pain. The plants would get massive with tons of leaves that would fall down inside plant and start breaking down on top of the plastic. In soil, that just breaks down and becomes more dirt.
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago
  Thanks for going in detail as to why it is severely impractical and inefficient, all the items you listed are overlooked or outright ignored in the discussions I have read, as you probably guessed I am way out of my field. In your opinion, what's the main bottleneck wrt to resources?
  - gtvwill 6y ago
    Eh the problem with resources is not using systems that are a closed loop for the whole cycle. e.g. Currently most vert farms or greenhouses buy in all their seed and nutrient and alot of the time grow medium too. Its wasteful just in the nature of it, you can't recycle those parts, your not producing them so you drain them from somewhere else. What I would love to see is hybrid broad acre/high density greenhouse farms. I'm leaning towards productions suited for my region for this example, it would require tailoring to each regions climates/capacities if you were to do this everywhere. On the broad acre you essentially would do native grasses/root vegetables/shrub crops and runs of more traditional mono crops in dispersed amongst heavily Wooded paddocks. like 30-40% tree cover,30-40% perennial natives, 20-30% rotated mono-crop runs. You need to not stress the land too much where I am, and work with the droughts that come through (Australia). The whole goal of the broad acre is to produce a little food buffer but mostly material for nutrient creation. So maybe you harvest/cut your native grasses a few times a year, bail it, inoculate it with fungi to eat it and convert it to a higher nutrient product for fertilizer if your running soil greenhouses. Or you could use mulched grasses to run a snail farm, that in turn feeds a aquaculture setup which you can strip the fish shit out of for nutes to supply your high density vert farm. Having the broad acre allows you to do other things too like maintain bee hives which can be brought into the greenhouse for pollinating. Huge amounts of resources/capital required to set closed loops like this up...but on the plus side...once their setup, if you do things right like use high grade materials(e.g stainless for all your greenhouse piping/water setup) it can last for near infinite time with correct maintenance. Just good luck getting a investor who gets profit @ 10-20 year mark rather than 6-12 months. Market doesn't seem to like long games these days even if it is whats probably best for environment/long term sustainable high density farming. Oh and also we need a robot that can pick fruit/veg and do maintenance that requires dexterity (think unscrewing a nozzle or pipe fitting). Bad. Labor is a killer for broad acre tree crops and stuff that requires a bit of dexterity for harvest (see Australia's current farm labor shortage).
dr_orpheus 6y ago
A relevant previous submission to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25554941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25554941 The article linked presented the the efficiency of vertical farming in terms of produce/area. But as was pointed out in some of the comments on that article the cost of the greens grown on vertical farms was in the range of $15/pound [1]. Which is about 3x the price of organic greens at Whole Foods, or 10x the price of what you would find at Walmart. [1] https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531192/vertical-farming-agriculture-hydroponic-greens https://www.eater.com/2018/7/3/17531192/vertical-farming-agr...

TT3351 6y ago

>Growing in warehouses or vertically forces you to substitute the sun with artificial lights Couldn't one construct pylons outdoors for planting? I don't see why it wouldn't work if you constructed it narrower at each successive plant height. Some indoor vertical farming I've seen rotates the entire vertical structure, necessitating only one light facing a section of the column. I would expect this kind of rotation might help outdoors as well.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stretchcat 6y ago
One constraint to keep in mind is how quickly and efficiently the field can be harvested. If you're talking about a crop that is harvested by hand then this isn't really a factor. But if you're trying to grow a crop that is usually mechanically harvested, you have to compete with that efficiency with machines of your own that are compatible with the structure of your farm (or content yourself with selling luxury produce priced for the wealthy.)

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Converting a field into a solar farm so that you can power artificial lights to grow plants is indeed not exactly ideal... But there are also energy and cost savings because you can remove most of the transport, which at the moment involves ICE vehicles, and the energy does not have to come from solar sources (just within renewables there are other options). Longer term we can also imagine artificial lights powered by fusion power, which would probably be the best option in term of space saving and environmental impact.

robocat 6y ago
In theory a solar cell could also absorb wavelengths that plants can’t/don’t use (infrared, green, ultraviolet) and emit the ideal spectrum for chlorophyll a/b to absorb. If the efficiency could be [radically] improved then more could be grown per unit area of solar cells than could be under the sun when naturally farmed. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Biology/ligabs.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Biology/ligabs.ht... Edit: note the reason that most plants are green is because their growth is not limited by the amount of sunlight converted, so they can afford to throw away some efficiency e.g. they might be limited by water or mineral availability. Quote from same site: “Some plants and plantlike organisms have developed other pigments to compensate for low light or poor use of light. Cyanobacteria and red algae have phycocyanin and allophycocyanin as accessory pigments to absorbe orange light. They also have a red pigment called phycoerythrin that absorbs green light and extends the range of photosynthesis. The red pigment lycopene is found in vegetables. Some red algae are in fact nearly black, so that increases their photosynthetic efficiency. Brown algae have the pigment fucoxanthin in addition to chlorophyll to widen their absorption range. These red and brown algae grow to depths around 270 meters where the light is less than 1% of surface light.” Edit 2: plant photosynthetic efficiency in capturing CO2 as sugars: “the theoretical efficiency is 114/381 or 30%. Remarkably, Moore, et al. report that 25% has been achieved under laboratory conditions. The top efficiency they reported under natural growing conditions was the winter-evening primrose growing in Death Valley at 8%”
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  > If the efficiency could be [radically] improved then more could be grown per unit area of solar cells than could be under the sun when naturally farmed. That's a big 'if', though, considering that you'd need to offset both the land taken up by the solar panels and the losses of the electricity transmission.

mortehu 6y ago

Plants reflect and diffuse most sunlight, and we can make lamps that only emit wavelengths that are suitable for photosynthesis. Doesn't this complicate the model a bit?