6 ms·

High tunnels are very efficient. Greenhouses are very efficient. I've visited https://district.farm/ https://district.farm/ and it's clearly the future (or the

High tunnels are very efficient. Greenhouses are very efficient. I've visited https://district.farm/ https://district.farm/ and it's clearly the future (or the present if you're in Northern Europe). When I went there they were at 1/4 of grow space that they are now. Ready to expand? You just add more enclosures. You slowly recoup the capital cost of the structure. Might take a few years, but you will. Rinse and repeat. The US is not hurting for land, we just don't use it as best we can, and we don't have the capital in enough hands to make basic, boring, but efficient methods like this work at larger scale.

xjlin0 3y ago
> The US is not hurting for land, we just don't use it as best we can Hmmm, really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
hedora 3y ago
I call BS on their claim they cut resource usage by 95%. Traditional greenhouses (which the one at that landing site appears to be) are extremely energy intensive. This article explains why, and describes a common, practical alternative: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/reinventing-the-greenhouse.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/reinventing-the-gree... Also, people ridiculously overestimate the percentage of food’s carbon footprint that comes food transportation: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220429-the-climate-benefits-of-veganism-and-vegetarianism https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220429-the-climate-bene... (Search for locally grown food to jump to the right figure). Note that, even if the greenhouse, transport, storage and packaging all used zero resources, the percentage of food they produce that is thrown into landfills (and turns to methane) is going to be more than 5% the impact of traditionally grown food.
- scythe 3y ago
  >the percentage of food they produce that is thrown into landfills (and turns to methane) The last time I tried to advocate for replacing landfills with incinerators on HN, someone came along to insist that methane recapture from landfills was possible and preferable (methane is useful, if you can confine it). I haven't had time to study that further, but managing food waste — aside from the actual lack of food it causes — is a solvable problem one way or another, and doesn't have to generate methane. Now, nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers...
  - hosh 3y ago
    Food is thrown away because grocery stores want to sell uniform looking produce with no blemishes, and consumers came to expect that. That is the largest reason they get sent to the landfill, with growers have been sending it there before they get shipped. There is a lot of waste going on here because: - Consumers turn their noses on perfectly edible food that looks ugly. (There are volunteer organizations that intercepts such food at the landfill sites, and as food prices goes up, they have become more popular) - Consumers living in the city typically don’t have chickens, pigs, goats, or rabbits, that will happily eat any of leftovers that haven’t rotted - Consumers typically don’t have vermicomposting, black soldier fly composting, or even just regular composting, so unless the municipality has an industrial composting site, it goes into the landfill. I think people get too obsessed over carbon dioxide and methane metrics, and become narrow minded about such solutions … because atmospheric carbon dioxide is an easy metric to carry a call for action. It’s like that comfortable illusion I used to have that, if I put in the effort to recycle, I am doing my part. That’s all wishful thinking. Take landfills. The problem with putting food waste into landfills is not an increase in methane (and atmospheric methane isn’t as big of a deal as say, soil depletion, soil temperature, oceanic acidification). Landfills trap the methanes produced by decomposing food waste. They need some kind of vent or capture, or the landfill will eventually explode from the accumulated methane. But more importantly, the biggest issue is that the trapped methane in landfills is no longer bioavailable, and participating in the ecologies in the carbon cycle.
    - neild 3y ago
      Blemished, non-uniform product is turned into more processed food products or animal feed. Tomato soup isn’t made from the prettiest tomatoes. Blemished apples become applesauce. Tropicana puts a picture of a beautiful orange on the bottle, but they don’t care about what the ones going into the juicer look like. Consumer preferences for nice looking fruits and vegetables have little to no impact on overall food waste.
      - hosh 3y ago
        That is presuming that the supply of blemished foods gets completely used up by food processors, and that’s not true. https://www.usda.gov/foodlossandwaste/faqs https://www.usda.gov/foodlossandwaste/faqs
- qqqwerty 3y ago
  > Traditional greenhouses (which the one at that landing site appears to be) are extremely energy intensive. Uhh, I am not seeing anything in that article that supports that claim, other than the first sentence, which does not cite any sources. That article appears to be discussing ways to maximize greenhouse performance in winter, on the premise that glass is a poor insulator. But no where does it discuss energy consumption of modern greenhouses. My understanding is that they do not use climate control at all, except maybe some fans for air circulation. So sure, put some walls on your greenhouse for better heat retention. But making something more efficient, that already uses nearly zero energy might not be the best use of resources.
  - tfourb 3y ago
    Climate control is only one aspect of energy usage. Another is light. Flying over the Netherlands at night is spectacular, in some parts it looks like they've just flooded entire regions with grow lights. I think I've read that many use heating as well, though I have no data on that and I don't think it is very common outside the Netherlands.
    - gtop3 3y ago
      If you look at https://district.farm/ https://district.farm/ as was citied in the root comment, you'll see they aren't using lights or heaters. California doesn't require those. The energy usage and output of greenhouses varies significantly by seasons and region. You really need to do direct comparisons for individual bits of land instead of broad statements. It's probably worth the light and heat costs if a country cannot grow enough vegetables for it's population without it. The US doesn't have that issue, because we have lots of growing space with long growing seasons.
    - justincormack 3y ago
      Netherlands uses gas heating often, to heat and increase co2 levels.
dylan604 3y ago
>The US is not hurting for land, we just don't use it as best we can This is true on multiple levels of the word use. From the practice of monocrops to only keeping the ground fertile through the use of chemicals, I'm amazed that we haven't had more problems.
hosh 3y ago
It’s not always about efficiency. Sometimes, it is about resilience, anti-fragility, and food source locality. And maximizing efficiency tends to lead to trade off in those other areas.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  +1 All of what you mentioned are a form of efficiency observed over long enough timelines

xjlin0 3y ago

> The US is not hurting for land, we just don't use it as best we can Hmmm, really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

hedora 3y ago

I call BS on their claim they cut resource usage by 95%. Traditional greenhouses (which the one at that landing site appears to be) are extremely energy intensive. This article explains why, and describes a common, practical alternative: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/reinventing-the-greenhouse.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/reinventing-the-gree... Also, people ridiculously overestimate the percentage of food’s carbon footprint that comes food transportation: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220429-the-climate-benefits-of-veganism-and-vegetarianism https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220429-the-climate-bene... (Search for locally grown food to jump to the right figure). Note that, even if the greenhouse, transport, storage and packaging all used zero resources, the percentage of food they produce that is thrown into landfills (and turns to methane) is going to be more than 5% the impact of traditionally grown food.

scythe 3y ago
>the percentage of food they produce that is thrown into landfills (and turns to methane) The last time I tried to advocate for replacing landfills with incinerators on HN, someone came along to insist that methane recapture from landfills was possible and preferable (methane is useful, if you can confine it). I haven't had time to study that further, but managing food waste — aside from the actual lack of food it causes — is a solvable problem one way or another, and doesn't have to generate methane. Now, nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizers...
- hosh 3y ago
  Food is thrown away because grocery stores want to sell uniform looking produce with no blemishes, and consumers came to expect that. That is the largest reason they get sent to the landfill, with growers have been sending it there before they get shipped. There is a lot of waste going on here because: - Consumers turn their noses on perfectly edible food that looks ugly. (There are volunteer organizations that intercepts such food at the landfill sites, and as food prices goes up, they have become more popular) - Consumers living in the city typically don’t have chickens, pigs, goats, or rabbits, that will happily eat any of leftovers that haven’t rotted - Consumers typically don’t have vermicomposting, black soldier fly composting, or even just regular composting, so unless the municipality has an industrial composting site, it goes into the landfill. I think people get too obsessed over carbon dioxide and methane metrics, and become narrow minded about such solutions … because atmospheric carbon dioxide is an easy metric to carry a call for action. It’s like that comfortable illusion I used to have that, if I put in the effort to recycle, I am doing my part. That’s all wishful thinking. Take landfills. The problem with putting food waste into landfills is not an increase in methane (and atmospheric methane isn’t as big of a deal as say, soil depletion, soil temperature, oceanic acidification). Landfills trap the methanes produced by decomposing food waste. They need some kind of vent or capture, or the landfill will eventually explode from the accumulated methane. But more importantly, the biggest issue is that the trapped methane in landfills is no longer bioavailable, and participating in the ecologies in the carbon cycle.
  - neild 3y ago
    Blemished, non-uniform product is turned into more processed food products or animal feed. Tomato soup isn’t made from the prettiest tomatoes. Blemished apples become applesauce. Tropicana puts a picture of a beautiful orange on the bottle, but they don’t care about what the ones going into the juicer look like. Consumer preferences for nice looking fruits and vegetables have little to no impact on overall food waste.
    - hosh 3y ago
      That is presuming that the supply of blemished foods gets completely used up by food processors, and that’s not true. https://www.usda.gov/foodlossandwaste/faqs https://www.usda.gov/foodlossandwaste/faqs
qqqwerty 3y ago
> Traditional greenhouses (which the one at that landing site appears to be) are extremely energy intensive. Uhh, I am not seeing anything in that article that supports that claim, other than the first sentence, which does not cite any sources. That article appears to be discussing ways to maximize greenhouse performance in winter, on the premise that glass is a poor insulator. But no where does it discuss energy consumption of modern greenhouses. My understanding is that they do not use climate control at all, except maybe some fans for air circulation. So sure, put some walls on your greenhouse for better heat retention. But making something more efficient, that already uses nearly zero energy might not be the best use of resources.
- tfourb 3y ago
  Climate control is only one aspect of energy usage. Another is light. Flying over the Netherlands at night is spectacular, in some parts it looks like they've just flooded entire regions with grow lights. I think I've read that many use heating as well, though I have no data on that and I don't think it is very common outside the Netherlands.
  - gtop3 3y ago
    If you look at https://district.farm/ https://district.farm/ as was citied in the root comment, you'll see they aren't using lights or heaters. California doesn't require those. The energy usage and output of greenhouses varies significantly by seasons and region. You really need to do direct comparisons for individual bits of land instead of broad statements. It's probably worth the light and heat costs if a country cannot grow enough vegetables for it's population without it. The US doesn't have that issue, because we have lots of growing space with long growing seasons.
  - justincormack 3y ago
    Netherlands uses gas heating often, to heat and increase co2 levels.

dylan604 3y ago

>The US is not hurting for land, we just don't use it as best we can This is true on multiple levels of the word use. From the practice of monocrops to only keeping the ground fertile through the use of chemicals, I'm amazed that we haven't had more problems.

hosh 3y ago

It’s not always about efficiency. Sometimes, it is about resilience, anti-fragility, and food source locality. And maximizing efficiency tends to lead to trade off in those other areas.

maerF0x0 3y ago
+1 All of what you mentioned are a form of efficiency observed over long enough timelines