5 ms·

Vertical farming mostly feels like a solution in search of a problem. It uses relatively expensive technology to produce low-value products. Putting seeds in th

Vertical farming mostly feels like a solution in search of a problem. It uses relatively expensive technology to produce low-value products. Putting seeds in the ground, tilling, and waiting is absurdly cheap compared to building growhouses. For some perspective, what farms actually do extend growing seasons is put "greenhouses" around cold-sensitive crops like tomatoes, but a "greenhouse" in this case is a wire hoop with clear plastic around it. It's interesting if you want to support 50B people on Earth, but the resources required to build it out mean it isn't really even a viable solution for restoring farmland to wildland without massive amounts of mining.

pydry 6y ago
It's a solution for taking trucks off the road and avoiding waste from spoiled produce. It's not a solution for saving land.
- farisjarrah 6y ago
  If a vertical farm scales up and sells their produce to a super market, dont they still have to package up all the food and ship it on trucks before it gets to the end user?
  - kapp_in_life 6y ago
    Yes but the idea is you are now shipping it 5 miles instead of 500 miles.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      Isn't using an electric truck powered on solar or nuclear a far easier and more cost effective solution than vertical farming?
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    My local supermarket has hydroponics on site and sells them there.
hctaw 6y ago
The greater problem to solve is maximizing nutrition for communities while minimizing the carbon costs of providing it. Vertical farms fit into that equation by moving production closer to the people that eat the produce, and making it more available to food/nutrition deserts in urban areas. Extending growing seasons or returning farmlands to wildlands miss that point. The bigger problem in the latter is livestock anyway.
- mannerheim 6y ago
  Most of the carbon costs of providing food comes from the process of growing it, not transporting it. Most of the carbon costs in transportation also come from consumers driving to and from grocery stores. See: https://www.salon.com/2012/06/16/eating_local_hurts_the_planet/ https://www.salon.com/2012/06/16/eating_local_hurts_the_plan...
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    In the US, we use more energy cooking food than we do growing it. Agriculture is only about 1% of total energy demand.
    - mannerheim 6y ago
      Food has to be prepared in any event. On the other hand, a move to locally produced food to save energy from transportation can be more than cancelled out if the production requires more energy input.
- frankus 6y ago
  What you have to watch out for is displacing housing to build vertical farms. It’s absurdly cheaper and easier to move food for a person into a city than to move that person in and out of the city on a daily basis.
6DM 6y ago
Aside from what the other commenters are saying around trucking the produce. Another benefit of growing indoors that you no longer need pesticides to keep bugs from destroying your crops. Edit: also it's supposed to use a lot less water
- bastawhiz 6y ago
  Regarding water at least, it's a lot easier, cheaper, and less energy-intensive to pump water from a waterways/well and spray it on crops than it is to use water processed and delivered through a municipal system. Plants don't need that's been fluoridated or otherwise heavily treated. Especially since fresh water in most dense urban areas is not very plentiful (with some exceptions), I would find it hard to believe that the decrease in water needs outweighs the lack of availability and cost.
jokoon 6y ago
It's certainly not cheap in carbon, which is the main problem in farming. Vertical farming optimizes water and transport. I admit that I'm not entirely convinced about vertical farming, but I'm confident it has a future. I'm still curious about using leds and yield.
- Ekaros 6y ago
  And when we start talking about skyscrapers I start to really wonder the sunke co2 on those. Plus all the equipment used to run the stuff... How will it compare at scale?
ardy42 6y ago
> It's interesting if you want to support 50B people on Earth, but the resources required to build it out mean it isn't really even a viable solution for restoring farmland to wildland without massive amounts of mining. Also it seems to be mainly about producing calorie-poor produce like lettuce. If you actually want to feed people, you need to produce calories, and I don't see how that's helped by putting several extra conversion inefficiencies between the energy source and the plants.

pydry 6y ago

It's a solution for taking trucks off the road and avoiding waste from spoiled produce. It's not a solution for saving land.

farisjarrah 6y ago
If a vertical farm scales up and sells their produce to a super market, dont they still have to package up all the food and ship it on trucks before it gets to the end user?
- kapp_in_life 6y ago
  Yes but the idea is you are now shipping it 5 miles instead of 500 miles.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    Isn't using an electric truck powered on solar or nuclear a far easier and more cost effective solution than vertical farming?
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  My local supermarket has hydroponics on site and sells them there.

hctaw 6y ago

The greater problem to solve is maximizing nutrition for communities while minimizing the carbon costs of providing it. Vertical farms fit into that equation by moving production closer to the people that eat the produce, and making it more available to food/nutrition deserts in urban areas. Extending growing seasons or returning farmlands to wildlands miss that point. The bigger problem in the latter is livestock anyway.

mannerheim 6y ago
Most of the carbon costs of providing food comes from the process of growing it, not transporting it. Most of the carbon costs in transportation also come from consumers driving to and from grocery stores. See: https://www.salon.com/2012/06/16/eating_local_hurts_the_planet/ https://www.salon.com/2012/06/16/eating_local_hurts_the_plan...
- pfdietz 6y ago
  In the US, we use more energy cooking food than we do growing it. Agriculture is only about 1% of total energy demand.
  - mannerheim 6y ago
    Food has to be prepared in any event. On the other hand, a move to locally produced food to save energy from transportation can be more than cancelled out if the production requires more energy input.
frankus 6y ago
What you have to watch out for is displacing housing to build vertical farms. It’s absurdly cheaper and easier to move food for a person into a city than to move that person in and out of the city on a daily basis.

6DM 6y ago

Aside from what the other commenters are saying around trucking the produce. Another benefit of growing indoors that you no longer need pesticides to keep bugs from destroying your crops. Edit: also it's supposed to use a lot less water

bastawhiz 6y ago
Regarding water at least, it's a lot easier, cheaper, and less energy-intensive to pump water from a waterways/well and spray it on crops than it is to use water processed and delivered through a municipal system. Plants don't need that's been fluoridated or otherwise heavily treated. Especially since fresh water in most dense urban areas is not very plentiful (with some exceptions), I would find it hard to believe that the decrease in water needs outweighs the lack of availability and cost.

jokoon 6y ago

It's certainly not cheap in carbon, which is the main problem in farming. Vertical farming optimizes water and transport. I admit that I'm not entirely convinced about vertical farming, but I'm confident it has a future. I'm still curious about using leds and yield.

Ekaros 6y ago
And when we start talking about skyscrapers I start to really wonder the sunke co2 on those. Plus all the equipment used to run the stuff... How will it compare at scale?

ardy42 6y ago

> It's interesting if you want to support 50B people on Earth, but the resources required to build it out mean it isn't really even a viable solution for restoring farmland to wildland without massive amounts of mining. Also it seems to be mainly about producing calorie-poor produce like lettuce. If you actually want to feed people, you need to produce calories, and I don't see how that's helped by putting several extra conversion inefficiencies between the energy source and the plants.