5 ms·

A nice science project and possibly of use in desert climates or in tiny, extremely densely populated, nations like Singapore. But I don't see how it would be

by rmah 6y ago

A nice science project and possibly of use in desert climates or in tiny, extremely densely populated, nations like Singapore. But I don't see how it would be viable or why it would be needed for the vast majority of the world's agriculture. Rain is free. "two of the world’s biggest problems – water scarcity and food shortage"... neither of these are big problems, or even problems, for the "world". Water scarcity is a problem in a few areas. The world produces multiple times more food than humans could possibly eat (most is fed to animals). Any famine is a local/social/logistical/political problem.

michaelbrave 6y ago
I dunno, if you talk to any farmer's out in the western US water is a big deal, it's what determines where cities/settlements were built, it causes political strain (Colorado vs Kansas on water rights - Colorado has opted to pay fines rather than send water to Kansas) and is in many ways unsustainable (California imports a lot and grows crops that are not drought friendly like Pistachios, forcing droughts to be a different beast than 50 years ago). In a lot of ways water scarcity is one of the most underlying political forces for the western US, though few would know it unless they looked deeper. I also think it would hold some promise as we de-desertification parts of the world (they are making some progress in the Sahara and also the Badain Jaran in Mongolia/China). Which is important as deserts can creep up and take over places, it's especially concerning as we lose tons of topsoil as we did in the midwest during the dustbowl, and without proper soil management could turn prime farmland into deserts. Having more water options for dry areas can only be a good thing.
- thinkcontext 6y ago
  Without any cost information we can't really tell anything about the viability of this technology. For example, water in CA ranges from $90 per acre foot from the State Water Project to $3000 for reverse osmosis of seawater.
- realce 6y ago
  The amount of electricity it would take would be insane and then you're pulling rain out of the atmosphere, impacting your neighbors and region overall. More water is great, but these things + "urban farming" is just a sales pitch.
  - calvinmorrison 6y ago
    aren't these things just dehumidifiers?
    - realce 6y ago
      super fancy ones with lots of filters basically -- look up "atmospheric water generator" on amazon to see the types that are on the market for home use
  - spullara 6y ago
    Or you can use solar power integrated with the device: https://www.source.co/ https://www.source.co/
foxyv 6y ago
The only reason I've seen for vertical farming that makes any sense right now is that you can control the environment without damaging the ecosystem around you. Filtered air so no cross pollination with wild strains, no insects, recycled water so no runoff or wasted fertilization, perfectly regulated soil/hydroponics, no PH issues from rain, no herbicides, etc... Good for high value, difficult to raise crops. Usually stuff that costs an arm and a leg like pink lettuce, white asparagus, hop shoots and wasabi root. Otherwise the entire thing is too expensive. Usually water is more expensive in urban areas and power costs are prohibitive. Then you have the cost of capital to build a giant building that can support extremely heavy equipment for grow beds. You can't just use an old office building to support a couple thousand tons of equipment unfortunately. But the thing is, right now there is so much arable land we can have luxuries like cattle and farmed wild game. In 80 years we may not be able to maintain those luxuries for 10.5 billion people without vertical farming. Especially since a lot of those people are starting to become more affluent on average. I wouldn't be surprised to see beef prices go above $20-30 a pound before the end of my life. Even accounting for inflation. Maybe VF will become economical by then?
- throwaway1777 6y ago
  Cattle are not a luxury, they are literally part of subsistence farming in many regions and an important part of the ecosystem. One of the reasons we have to use so much fertilizer is because we stopped letting cattle graze over the fields. Monocrop corn and soy fields are a far bigger problem for sustainability than people think, maybe as bad as industrial animal farming.
  - splistud 6y ago
    History shows that 3 things are important for food security: live animals for milk or slaughter, grain that can be stored, and any local food that can be easily dried. Before we react that food security isn't really a thing anymore, history has something to say about that as well. And yet the foolish are advocating for 2 of these safety nets to be disposed of.
  - foxyv 5y ago
hinkley 6y ago
Rain is mostly free if ocean is all that is downwind of you. Most of the West Coast of the United States is lush because the terrain catches most of the water that would otherwise flow much farther inland.

by rmah 6y ago

michaelbrave 6y ago

I dunno, if you talk to any farmer's out in the western US water is a big deal, it's what determines where cities/settlements were built, it causes political strain (Colorado vs Kansas on water rights - Colorado has opted to pay fines rather than send water to Kansas) and is in many ways unsustainable (California imports a lot and grows crops that are not drought friendly like Pistachios, forcing droughts to be a different beast than 50 years ago). In a lot of ways water scarcity is one of the most underlying political forces for the western US, though few would know it unless they looked deeper. I also think it would hold some promise as we de-desertification parts of the world (they are making some progress in the Sahara and also the Badain Jaran in Mongolia/China). Which is important as deserts can creep up and take over places, it's especially concerning as we lose tons of topsoil as we did in the midwest during the dustbowl, and without proper soil management could turn prime farmland into deserts. Having more water options for dry areas can only be a good thing.

thinkcontext 6y ago
Without any cost information we can't really tell anything about the viability of this technology. For example, water in CA ranges from $90 per acre foot from the State Water Project to $3000 for reverse osmosis of seawater.
realce 6y ago
The amount of electricity it would take would be insane and then you're pulling rain out of the atmosphere, impacting your neighbors and region overall. More water is great, but these things + "urban farming" is just a sales pitch.
- calvinmorrison 6y ago
  aren't these things just dehumidifiers?
  - realce 6y ago
    super fancy ones with lots of filters basically -- look up "atmospheric water generator" on amazon to see the types that are on the market for home use
- spullara 6y ago
  Or you can use solar power integrated with the device: https://www.source.co/ https://www.source.co/

foxyv 6y ago

The only reason I've seen for vertical farming that makes any sense right now is that you can control the environment without damaging the ecosystem around you. Filtered air so no cross pollination with wild strains, no insects, recycled water so no runoff or wasted fertilization, perfectly regulated soil/hydroponics, no PH issues from rain, no herbicides, etc... Good for high value, difficult to raise crops. Usually stuff that costs an arm and a leg like pink lettuce, white asparagus, hop shoots and wasabi root. Otherwise the entire thing is too expensive. Usually water is more expensive in urban areas and power costs are prohibitive. Then you have the cost of capital to build a giant building that can support extremely heavy equipment for grow beds. You can't just use an old office building to support a couple thousand tons of equipment unfortunately. But the thing is, right now there is so much arable land we can have luxuries like cattle and farmed wild game. In 80 years we may not be able to maintain those luxuries for 10.5 billion people without vertical farming. Especially since a lot of those people are starting to become more affluent on average. I wouldn't be surprised to see beef prices go above $20-30 a pound before the end of my life. Even accounting for inflation. Maybe VF will become economical by then?

throwaway1777 6y ago
Cattle are not a luxury, they are literally part of subsistence farming in many regions and an important part of the ecosystem. One of the reasons we have to use so much fertilizer is because we stopped letting cattle graze over the fields. Monocrop corn and soy fields are a far bigger problem for sustainability than people think, maybe as bad as industrial animal farming.
- splistud 6y ago
  History shows that 3 things are important for food security: live animals for milk or slaughter, grain that can be stored, and any local food that can be easily dried. Before we react that food security isn't really a thing anymore, history has something to say about that as well. And yet the foolish are advocating for 2 of these safety nets to be disposed of.
- foxyv 5y ago

hinkley 6y ago

Rain is mostly free if ocean is all that is downwind of you. Most of the West Coast of the United States is lush because the terrain catches most of the water that would otherwise flow much farther inland.