8 ms·

I think it was a HN comment (on a different article) that opened my eyes to something alluded to in this article: vertical farming and hydroponics in general ba

I think it was a HN comment (on a different article) that opened my eyes to something alluded to in this article: vertical farming and hydroponics in general basically doesn't grow stuff with (significant quantities of) calories. It grows expensive leafy greens, but for staple foods, you need soil. This basically made me regard vertical farming as... not fundamentally important to the future of food.

gricardo99 4y ago
your conclusion may be correct but there could be circumstances that change the calculation. For example, if moving expensive leafy greens to vertical farms frees up soil, water and other resources for staples.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  My issues is that they still need energy input. And this takes land, specially for renewables. And that land is close or even more than just laying the same on flat ground.
- Animats 4y ago
  Tomatoes and strawberries have been grown vertically. There's an ultra-premium vegetable and fruit sector, but it's inherently tiny. High energy prices right now are mostly the result of the Ukraine war. It's painful now, but it is accelerating the conversion from fossil fuels. At least if this doesn't expand into a larger war.
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    The high energy prices are not because of the war but because of the sanctions regime. The thing is, sanctions basically never end. It's impossible to lift them. We still have sanctions against Cuba since 1962. No one even cares about Cuba anymore. The sanctions against Iran remain in place since 1979, and have only ever gotten stricter. Same for Syria, which we began to sanction in 1986. It's called "the sanctions escalator", because it only ever moves up. New sanctions are now being introduced against China. There is no reason to think that, after the war is over, the sanctions will be lifted. I mean, why would they be lifted? Europe is not going to return to Russia the assets that were frozen/seized or start wanting to trade with Russia -- or vice versa -- moreover there are already new pipelines and trade agreements made within Eurasia that exclude Europe as a market for energy. This is a permanent change ushering in a new cold war and a new multipolar world, where it's going to be hard (but not impossible) for commodities to cross bloc boundaries. Russia's commodities are going to be flowing east and south, Saudi Arabia's will be flowing mostly to China, while North American commodities will be staying mostly in North America. After permanently and irreparably rupturing the previous trade relationships, Europe is going to have to become more energy independent, and I think they realize now that the previous energy dependence they had was a strategic weakness for them. They will need to learn to do with less energy at least until they ramp up domestically produced replacements such as nuclear or renewables + storage.
    - bjelkeman-again 4y ago
      Sanctions do get lifted. Sanctions against South Africa are an example: https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/european-community-lifts-sanctions-against-sa https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/european-community-... EU sanctions against others may also cease after a regime change. US lifted sanctions against Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Vietnam_relations#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Vietnam_relation...
      - rsj_hn 4y ago
        I mean, if your hope is for regime change, then I'd recommend an energy policy that is based on something a bit more realistic. Imagine telling farmers or businesses in Germany or the UK that "Your bills will remain high until there is regime change in Russia". They would correctly view that as lack of an energy policy. Europe requires an energy policy for the world that exists, not the world it wishes would exist. We have not been able to change the regime in Syria, Iran or Cuba despite decades trying. Not sure why you think China or Russia is going to be a more realistic target. FYI, the successor to Putin is Medvedev, who is much more of an anti-western hardliner. If Europe is pinning its hopes for the future on regime change in Russia, then the people of Europe deserve much more competent leadership.
        bjelkeman-again 4y ago
        Tell me a region in the world which couldn't do with more competent leadership. :)
        rsj_hn 4y ago
        I think Europe is unique in terms of denying reality so much that they don't even have a plan. It's like the prospect of some things are so terrible as to be unthinkable and when something is unthinkable, you don't come up with a plan to deal with it. Instead, you shout down anyone who brings up the unmentionable thing. For Europe, the list of unthinkable things keeps growing: * What if they can't deploy enough energy storage at scale to make their renewable push actually work? Unthinkable! * What if there is no regime change in Russia, and the present situation just continues for a few decades. Unthinkable! * What will they do with millions of Ukrainian refugees that refuse to or are unable to return home? And the many millions more that will be flooding in soon? Unthinkable! So this deer in the headlights inability to face reality is the leadership problem. And the sad thing is that Europe does have options. There is coal in Poland, Natural gas in Germany, Nuclear in France, Wind in Italy. They can scale up production of domestic sources and deal with the stark reality that they need to become much more energy independent OR they can spend $200 billion subsidizing the purchase of imported natural gas for consumers, just hoping that things "go back to normal after the war".
  - holoduke 4y ago
    It is not accelerating conversion to renewables now. In fact coal is never been used so much in Europe. The idea of transforming into a full renewable energy society is seen way too opportunistic.
    - com 4y ago
      Carbon emissions in the EU haven’t been so low for 30 years, according to the latest CREA analysis [1] It looks to them like a price-driven transition and if you are a market forces kind of person, the investments in renewables are already following the market pricing structure. 1. https://energyandcleanair.org/eu-co2-emissions-reach-a-30-year-low-in-november/ https://energyandcleanair.org/eu-co2-emissions-reach-a-30-ye...
    - Workaccount2 4y ago
      Europe is using coal to cover a current gap. It is not building new coal to cover future gaps. That's what is being said.
tinco 4y ago
I think they are, just not a future that's anywhere near. When energy becomes abundant, through nuclear or geothermal, then going vertical farming is going to be excellent for rewilding and enhancing yields. Investing $600M right now though.. seems a bit excessive, unless they somehow figured there's a completely unserved multi billion dollar luxury demand.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  That investment seems reasonable if part of their plan is to lobby government to force more local consumption. Regulatory capture for the win.
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Not true for potatoes. Can even do that on your balcony in some sort of barrel, with many holes on the side. No soil necessary. I'd guess that could work very well in vertical farming. It just wouldn't be economical, for now. OTOH why not grow superspecial heritage strains?
- MayeulC 4y ago
  You don't really need soil for calories-rich plants, but you need a lot of energy (sunlight). Which you obviouly can't have in a large vertical farm, unless you use a lot of electrical power.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    Why not? Build it with a glass front? Put it on a turn-table, and have it follow the sun!1!!
    - imtringued 4y ago
      Why not just keep growing it in the soil? We aren't on Mars.
      - MayeulC 4y ago
        Hmm, I had issues with the verticality, but hydroponics can save a lot of water (regular greenhouses too, by capturing evaporated water; you can also use pots). Indoor heating, temperature control, and protection from hail also mean year-round production, or at least protection against random weather events. Greenhouses can achieve most of these already, with more efficiency gains if water cannot escape underground. Verticality (including regular shelves on a single floor) is good for density (may be cheaper to build), but has energy density issues for some crops.
      - ls15 4y ago
        Even on planet Earth many places are not arable: https://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/arable-land-map.html https://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/arable-land-map.ht...
imtringued 4y ago
The fact that vertical farms popularized the concept of "leafy greens" should raise an eyebrow alone because that is an oddly specific type of plant that excludes almost every vegetable that I eat.
- kitd 4y ago
  Leafy greens have been part of human diets for forever. If they weren't popular in your part of the world, vertical farming should receive thanks for having made them so.
  - jcampbell1 4y ago
    Eating raw leafy greens is a hyper modern addition to human diets. If you want a $20 kale salad, go for it, but let’s not pretend eating uncooked nutritionally devoid foods is somehow necessary or historical.
    - maxerickson 4y ago
      What is your definition of hyper modern? Greeks and Romans ate pretty literal salads, and I'm pretty sure people historically knew what natural plants were edible and ate them some of the time.
kkfx 4y ago
They was pushed for a reason: we need to be able to detach from nature for space exploration, we might need to detach from nature to keep living in changed climate where some places are simply too hot, cold etc to live well and so on. Being able to be self-reliant meant being resilient and so being able to evolve more. Of course it's a failure because we are decades behind the needed level of tech and cheap energy to makes such approach feasible and probably they will never scale anyway. But for many aspects they are tempting for many people. Robotic industries like them, service industries like them, some long-term sociopolitical planners like them and so on.
ls15 4y ago
While no wheat or potatoes, 200 varieties, including eggplant and squashes, in aeroponic grow towers under the sun: https://youtu.be/GpKGbXWepAs https://youtu.be/GpKGbXWepAs Comparison of five cheap methods to grow potatoes hydroponically: https://youtu.be/l-gwc8ogevo https://youtu.be/l-gwc8ogevo
- hef19898 4y ago
  Because, on a global scale, we already have over production of basically everything due to highly industrialized agriculture. Our problem is distributing this production, and produce in more sustainable ways, for both us humans and the environment. No amount of "vertical farming" is going to solve any if those two problems, other than creating a bunch if start ups spending VC money on the ideas.
  - voakbasda 4y ago
    Vertical farms can help solve part of the distribution problem by allowing these farms to be started just about anywhere. A closed system probably will be more sustainable as well, in terms of water and nutrient consumption.
  - deterministic 4y ago
    Not only that. Apparently almost 50% of the grown perfectly eatable food gets thrown out because it is oddly shaped or not the right size for grocery stores. What a waste.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      Source? The usual figure I see is that food wastage is about 30--40%.[1] That figure's been remarkably stable over most of the past 100 years, though when the wastage happens has shifted dramatically toward the end-consumption phase, that is after a tremendous amount of additional energy has been applied in the form of transportation, processing, and cold-storage. It's much better to toss unusable food in its raw state on the farm rather than as leftovers from your fridge (harvested, transported, refrigerated or processed, merchandised, bought, driven home, cooked, refrigerated again). There's some wastage of imperfect fruit and vegetables, yes, though you'd be amazed at how much of that actually is incorporated into processed foods (dishes, smoothies, beverages, etc.) or used in animal feed earlier in the supply-chain. ________________________________ Notes: 1. E.g., US FDA: "In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30–40 percent of the food supply." <https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/food-loss-and-waste https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/food-loss-and-waste>. An arbitrarily-selected 1977 citation of the 1974 growing year suggests about 30% food wastage at the time as well ("the combined [food] loss ... could have fed an estimated 49 million people"): <https://www.google.com/books/edition/Food_Waste_an_Opportunity_to_Improve_Res/O5UrAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22food+waste%22+%22food+supply%22&pg=PA39&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Food_Waste_an_Opportuni...> Food Waste - an Opportunity to Improve Resource Use Department of Agriculture : Report to the Congress, US GAO (1977). I've seen similar figures in works on resource utilization / limits dating to the 1950s.
akiselev 4y ago
You might be thinking of this comment here [1]? The problem isn't the medium used to grow the calories per se, it's the overall cost per calorie which is mostly energy either in the form of fertilizer (which everyone pays, vertical or not) and in the form of photosynthetic input (which most non-vertical farms receive for free at the cost of reliability). The cost of scaling vertically (literally) is significantly more expensive in operating costs than scaling horizontally is in capital costs as long as the latter receives free energy in the form of sunlight. For example, green houses which are half way between bare fields and vertical farms in capital cost are economically competitive all over the world because they get free sunlight and extra trapped heat. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33790631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33790631

gricardo99 4y ago

your conclusion may be correct but there could be circumstances that change the calculation. For example, if moving expensive leafy greens to vertical farms frees up soil, water and other resources for staples.

Ekaros 4y ago
My issues is that they still need energy input. And this takes land, specially for renewables. And that land is close or even more than just laying the same on flat ground.
Animats 4y ago
Tomatoes and strawberries have been grown vertically. There's an ultra-premium vegetable and fruit sector, but it's inherently tiny. High energy prices right now are mostly the result of the Ukraine war. It's painful now, but it is accelerating the conversion from fossil fuels. At least if this doesn't expand into a larger war.
- rsj_hn 4y ago
  The high energy prices are not because of the war but because of the sanctions regime. The thing is, sanctions basically never end. It's impossible to lift them. We still have sanctions against Cuba since 1962. No one even cares about Cuba anymore. The sanctions against Iran remain in place since 1979, and have only ever gotten stricter. Same for Syria, which we began to sanction in 1986. It's called "the sanctions escalator", because it only ever moves up. New sanctions are now being introduced against China. There is no reason to think that, after the war is over, the sanctions will be lifted. I mean, why would they be lifted? Europe is not going to return to Russia the assets that were frozen/seized or start wanting to trade with Russia -- or vice versa -- moreover there are already new pipelines and trade agreements made within Eurasia that exclude Europe as a market for energy. This is a permanent change ushering in a new cold war and a new multipolar world, where it's going to be hard (but not impossible) for commodities to cross bloc boundaries. Russia's commodities are going to be flowing east and south, Saudi Arabia's will be flowing mostly to China, while North American commodities will be staying mostly in North America. After permanently and irreparably rupturing the previous trade relationships, Europe is going to have to become more energy independent, and I think they realize now that the previous energy dependence they had was a strategic weakness for them. They will need to learn to do with less energy at least until they ramp up domestically produced replacements such as nuclear or renewables + storage.
  - bjelkeman-again 4y ago
    Sanctions do get lifted. Sanctions against South Africa are an example: https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/european-community-lifts-sanctions-against-sa https://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/european-community-... EU sanctions against others may also cease after a regime change. US lifted sanctions against Vietnam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Vietnam_relations#21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Vietnam_relation...
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      I mean, if your hope is for regime change, then I'd recommend an energy policy that is based on something a bit more realistic. Imagine telling farmers or businesses in Germany or the UK that "Your bills will remain high until there is regime change in Russia". They would correctly view that as lack of an energy policy. Europe requires an energy policy for the world that exists, not the world it wishes would exist. We have not been able to change the regime in Syria, Iran or Cuba despite decades trying. Not sure why you think China or Russia is going to be a more realistic target. FYI, the successor to Putin is Medvedev, who is much more of an anti-western hardliner. If Europe is pinning its hopes for the future on regime change in Russia, then the people of Europe deserve much more competent leadership.
      - bjelkeman-again 4y ago
        Tell me a region in the world which couldn't do with more competent leadership. :)
        rsj_hn 4y ago
        I think Europe is unique in terms of denying reality so much that they don't even have a plan. It's like the prospect of some things are so terrible as to be unthinkable and when something is unthinkable, you don't come up with a plan to deal with it. Instead, you shout down anyone who brings up the unmentionable thing. For Europe, the list of unthinkable things keeps growing: * What if they can't deploy enough energy storage at scale to make their renewable push actually work? Unthinkable! * What if there is no regime change in Russia, and the present situation just continues for a few decades. Unthinkable! * What will they do with millions of Ukrainian refugees that refuse to or are unable to return home? And the many millions more that will be flooding in soon? Unthinkable! So this deer in the headlights inability to face reality is the leadership problem. And the sad thing is that Europe does have options. There is coal in Poland, Natural gas in Germany, Nuclear in France, Wind in Italy. They can scale up production of domestic sources and deal with the stark reality that they need to become much more energy independent OR they can spend $200 billion subsidizing the purchase of imported natural gas for consumers, just hoping that things "go back to normal after the war".
- holoduke 4y ago
  It is not accelerating conversion to renewables now. In fact coal is never been used so much in Europe. The idea of transforming into a full renewable energy society is seen way too opportunistic.
  - com 4y ago
    Carbon emissions in the EU haven’t been so low for 30 years, according to the latest CREA analysis [1] It looks to them like a price-driven transition and if you are a market forces kind of person, the investments in renewables are already following the market pricing structure. 1. https://energyandcleanair.org/eu-co2-emissions-reach-a-30-year-low-in-november/ https://energyandcleanair.org/eu-co2-emissions-reach-a-30-ye...
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    Europe is using coal to cover a current gap. It is not building new coal to cover future gaps. That's what is being said.

tinco 4y ago

I think they are, just not a future that's anywhere near. When energy becomes abundant, through nuclear or geothermal, then going vertical farming is going to be excellent for rewilding and enhancing yields. Investing $600M right now though.. seems a bit excessive, unless they somehow figured there's a completely unserved multi billion dollar luxury demand.

voakbasda 4y ago
That investment seems reasonable if part of their plan is to lobby government to force more local consumption. Regulatory capture for the win.

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago

Not true for potatoes. Can even do that on your balcony in some sort of barrel, with many holes on the side. No soil necessary. I'd guess that could work very well in vertical farming. It just wouldn't be economical, for now. OTOH why not grow superspecial heritage strains?

MayeulC 4y ago
You don't really need soil for calories-rich plants, but you need a lot of energy (sunlight). Which you obviouly can't have in a large vertical farm, unless you use a lot of electrical power.
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Why not? Build it with a glass front? Put it on a turn-table, and have it follow the sun!1!!
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Why not just keep growing it in the soil? We aren't on Mars.
    - MayeulC 4y ago
      Hmm, I had issues with the verticality, but hydroponics can save a lot of water (regular greenhouses too, by capturing evaporated water; you can also use pots). Indoor heating, temperature control, and protection from hail also mean year-round production, or at least protection against random weather events. Greenhouses can achieve most of these already, with more efficiency gains if water cannot escape underground. Verticality (including regular shelves on a single floor) is good for density (may be cheaper to build), but has energy density issues for some crops.
    - ls15 4y ago
      Even on planet Earth many places are not arable: https://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/arable-land-map.html https://www.mapsofworld.com/thematic-maps/arable-land-map.ht...

imtringued 4y ago

The fact that vertical farms popularized the concept of "leafy greens" should raise an eyebrow alone because that is an oddly specific type of plant that excludes almost every vegetable that I eat.

kitd 4y ago
Leafy greens have been part of human diets for forever. If they weren't popular in your part of the world, vertical farming should receive thanks for having made them so.
- jcampbell1 4y ago
  Eating raw leafy greens is a hyper modern addition to human diets. If you want a $20 kale salad, go for it, but let’s not pretend eating uncooked nutritionally devoid foods is somehow necessary or historical.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    What is your definition of hyper modern? Greeks and Romans ate pretty literal salads, and I'm pretty sure people historically knew what natural plants were edible and ate them some of the time.

kkfx 4y ago

They was pushed for a reason: we need to be able to detach from nature for space exploration, we might need to detach from nature to keep living in changed climate where some places are simply too hot, cold etc to live well and so on. Being able to be self-reliant meant being resilient and so being able to evolve more. Of course it's a failure because we are decades behind the needed level of tech and cheap energy to makes such approach feasible and probably they will never scale anyway. But for many aspects they are tempting for many people. Robotic industries like them, service industries like them, some long-term sociopolitical planners like them and so on.

ls15 4y ago

While no wheat or potatoes, 200 varieties, including eggplant and squashes, in aeroponic grow towers under the sun: https://youtu.be/GpKGbXWepAs https://youtu.be/GpKGbXWepAs Comparison of five cheap methods to grow potatoes hydroponically: https://youtu.be/l-gwc8ogevo https://youtu.be/l-gwc8ogevo

hef19898 4y ago
Because, on a global scale, we already have over production of basically everything due to highly industrialized agriculture. Our problem is distributing this production, and produce in more sustainable ways, for both us humans and the environment. No amount of "vertical farming" is going to solve any if those two problems, other than creating a bunch if start ups spending VC money on the ideas.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  Vertical farms can help solve part of the distribution problem by allowing these farms to be started just about anywhere. A closed system probably will be more sustainable as well, in terms of water and nutrient consumption.
- deterministic 4y ago
  Not only that. Apparently almost 50% of the grown perfectly eatable food gets thrown out because it is oddly shaped or not the right size for grocery stores. What a waste.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Source? The usual figure I see is that food wastage is about 30--40%.[1] That figure's been remarkably stable over most of the past 100 years, though when the wastage happens has shifted dramatically toward the end-consumption phase, that is after a tremendous amount of additional energy has been applied in the form of transportation, processing, and cold-storage. It's much better to toss unusable food in its raw state on the farm rather than as leftovers from your fridge (harvested, transported, refrigerated or processed, merchandised, bought, driven home, cooked, refrigerated again). There's some wastage of imperfect fruit and vegetables, yes, though you'd be amazed at how much of that actually is incorporated into processed foods (dishes, smoothies, beverages, etc.) or used in animal feed earlier in the supply-chain. ________________________________ Notes: 1. E.g., US FDA: "In the United States, food waste is estimated at between 30–40 percent of the food supply." <https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/food-loss-and-waste https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/food-loss-and-waste>. An arbitrarily-selected 1977 citation of the 1974 growing year suggests about 30% food wastage at the time as well ("the combined [food] loss ... could have fed an estimated 49 million people"): <https://www.google.com/books/edition/Food_Waste_an_Opportunity_to_Improve_Res/O5UrAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22food+waste%22+%22food+supply%22&pg=PA39&printsec=frontcover https://www.google.com/books/edition/Food_Waste_an_Opportuni...> Food Waste - an Opportunity to Improve Resource Use Department of Agriculture : Report to the Congress, US GAO (1977). I've seen similar figures in works on resource utilization / limits dating to the 1950s.

akiselev 4y ago

You might be thinking of this comment here [1]? The problem isn't the medium used to grow the calories per se, it's the overall cost per calorie which is mostly energy either in the form of fertilizer (which everyone pays, vertical or not) and in the form of photosynthetic input (which most non-vertical farms receive for free at the cost of reliability). The cost of scaling vertically (literally) is significantly more expensive in operating costs than scaling horizontally is in capital costs as long as the latter receives free energy in the form of sunlight. For example, green houses which are half way between bare fields and vertical farms in capital cost are economically competitive all over the world because they get free sunlight and extra trapped heat. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33790631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33790631