3 ms·

I don't know much about the power consumption and efficiency of vertical farm lighting and heating; can you share any references about them? One thing that doe

by jka 4y ago

I don't know much about the power consumption and efficiency of vertical farm lighting and heating; can you share any references about them? One thing that does occur to me is that artificial lighting wouldn't be limited by the passage of the sun, so crop growth could potentially continue 24 hours a day.

jaegerpicker 4y ago
Vertical farming is far less resource intensive, using LEDS powered by solar or wind and gravity flow designs. I posted this in another comment but here is very brief video talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5clOYWsNhhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5clOYWsNhhk I have other resources should you wish and I ton of personal experience. I have 3 Hydroponic systems (1 off the shelf, 2 custom designed by me) and 2 Aquaponics systems. The custom ones took 3 months to recoup the costs of materials vs the cost of produce, though the liquid fertilizer is a cost and input that I don't love. I've switched most of my effort to Aquaponics (Aquaculture - raising fish, which provides a natural fertilizer), I have 1 microsetup growing herbs and microgreens that has been running for 1 year. Only inputs are water and fish food, I clean it 1 once every 3 months since the plants act as a natural filter to clean the water.
zdragnar 4y ago
The original comment suggested putting the farm below apartment buildings ("below grade" means underground). It's extremely costly to provide sufficient light to grown plants, as photosynthesis isn't terribly efficient. Natural sunlight is significantly stronger than what people tend to expect. Not only that, but you would need to move massive amounts of air to keep the plants happy, plus the humidity from being underground and all the water they need. Beyond that, you need to go quite a bit underground to feed a sufficient number of people, which isn't always feasible depending on the type of soil and water table, etc Final note, most plants do better not getting 24 hours of light. They can only grow just so fast and need to photosynthesize just so much. That's a lot of work (meaning higher prices for people who need to eat) for very little gain.
- jaegerpicker 4y ago
  Below ground has trade offs, it's easier to use gravity flow designs but you lose all natural sunlight. Most of the time rain catchment systems on roof top vertical farms or free standing green houses are easier to design. There are already a bunch of vertical farms in commercial operation. The Netherlands in particular is leading the science here but in the US a number of farms exist. Vertical farming uses around 90% less water and solar/wind/hydro power for LED's is extremely doable. You are wholly incorrect about the amount of work required and amount of resources. It does take smart design to work however.
  - crummy 4y ago
    What's the efficiency loss for light>solar panel>LED>plants vs light>plants?
    - jaegerpicker 4y ago
      Wrong question to ask, PPFD's is the correct measure. It's not a direct energy comparison. Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction of Chlorophyll reacting to certain but not all light wavelength's (Red and Blue being the major ones) plus the distance from the light source. The amount of watts the the sun generates is NOT what grows plants. LED's can produce the same light wavelength's but much closer and with no obstructions. The question isn't about LED's power generation, it's how much power does it take for an LED to cover an area. Obviously a LED can't compare to pure Solar efficiency on a watt by watt basis but it doesn't need to.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      jaegerpicker is really uncooperative, even with numbers that should be easy to debunk he is struggling and trying to change the topic to stop you from thinking critically. https://sustainabledish.com/vertical-farms-thermodynamic-nonsense/ https://sustainabledish.com/vertical-farms-thermodynamic-non... "It turns out it would take about 4.5 acres of solar cells for every one acre of plant growth space" well that implies that the 100x efficiency factor has actually been met for lettuce but jaegerpicker didn't seem too keen on telling you. The obvious problem though is that solar panels are only 20% efficient hence roughly 5 acres of solar per 1 acre of vertical farming grow space.

by jka 4y ago

jaegerpicker 4y ago

Vertical farming is far less resource intensive, using LEDS powered by solar or wind and gravity flow designs. I posted this in another comment but here is very brief video talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5clOYWsNhhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5clOYWsNhhk I have other resources should you wish and I ton of personal experience. I have 3 Hydroponic systems (1 off the shelf, 2 custom designed by me) and 2 Aquaponics systems. The custom ones took 3 months to recoup the costs of materials vs the cost of produce, though the liquid fertilizer is a cost and input that I don't love. I've switched most of my effort to Aquaponics (Aquaculture - raising fish, which provides a natural fertilizer), I have 1 microsetup growing herbs and microgreens that has been running for 1 year. Only inputs are water and fish food, I clean it 1 once every 3 months since the plants act as a natural filter to clean the water.

zdragnar 4y ago

The original comment suggested putting the farm below apartment buildings ("below grade" means underground). It's extremely costly to provide sufficient light to grown plants, as photosynthesis isn't terribly efficient. Natural sunlight is significantly stronger than what people tend to expect. Not only that, but you would need to move massive amounts of air to keep the plants happy, plus the humidity from being underground and all the water they need. Beyond that, you need to go quite a bit underground to feed a sufficient number of people, which isn't always feasible depending on the type of soil and water table, etc Final note, most plants do better not getting 24 hours of light. They can only grow just so fast and need to photosynthesize just so much. That's a lot of work (meaning higher prices for people who need to eat) for very little gain.

jaegerpicker 4y ago
Below ground has trade offs, it's easier to use gravity flow designs but you lose all natural sunlight. Most of the time rain catchment systems on roof top vertical farms or free standing green houses are easier to design. There are already a bunch of vertical farms in commercial operation. The Netherlands in particular is leading the science here but in the US a number of farms exist. Vertical farming uses around 90% less water and solar/wind/hydro power for LED's is extremely doable. You are wholly incorrect about the amount of work required and amount of resources. It does take smart design to work however.
- crummy 4y ago
  What's the efficiency loss for light>solar panel>LED>plants vs light>plants?
  - jaegerpicker 4y ago
    Wrong question to ask, PPFD's is the correct measure. It's not a direct energy comparison. Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction of Chlorophyll reacting to certain but not all light wavelength's (Red and Blue being the major ones) plus the distance from the light source. The amount of watts the the sun generates is NOT what grows plants. LED's can produce the same light wavelength's but much closer and with no obstructions. The question isn't about LED's power generation, it's how much power does it take for an LED to cover an area. Obviously a LED can't compare to pure Solar efficiency on a watt by watt basis but it doesn't need to.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    jaegerpicker is really uncooperative, even with numbers that should be easy to debunk he is struggling and trying to change the topic to stop you from thinking critically. https://sustainabledish.com/vertical-farms-thermodynamic-nonsense/ https://sustainabledish.com/vertical-farms-thermodynamic-non... "It turns out it would take about 4.5 acres of solar cells for every one acre of plant growth space" well that implies that the 100x efficiency factor has actually been met for lettuce but jaegerpicker didn't seem too keen on telling you. The obvious problem though is that solar panels are only 20% efficient hence roughly 5 acres of solar per 1 acre of vertical farming grow space.