3 ms·

We wrote up an analysis of this sort of thing from an energy perspective -- bottom line: there's no energy-efficient way for hydroponic setups to produce anythi

We wrote up an analysis of this sort of thing from an energy perspective -- bottom line: there's no energy-efficient way for hydroponic setups to produce anything other than leafy green food crops. The energy balance is just all wrong. And it's going to be pretty difficult for vertical farms to compete with the Salinas Valley. https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf https://raghavan.usc.edu/papers/smartfarm-limits21.pdf

cinntaile 3y ago
There is almost no data in that paper? No new research is presented. It's more like a meta-analysis but not really, is this an opinion piece?
- barathr 3y ago
  It's a paper we wrote for a CS workshop -- that means it's necessarily a short paper, one that pulls together various threads to make a new argument.
risyachka 3y ago
In US? Or in general? Because I am pretty sure I've read there is a lot of very profitable indoor farms in Netherlands and other EU countries. Also, even if they are currently not profitable in US, they can easily become profitable in the next 5-10 years if climate changes more, fusion energy becomes cheap etc. The technology itself vastly outperforms traditional farms.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  Fusion energy becoming cheap in 5-10 years? You’re the most optimistic person on HN if you think that’s possible! It takes decades to build a fission plant and that’s with tech that already exists! I’d say the real path to viability is cheaper renewables and food and water becoming far more expensive. The western part of the US uses an unsustainable amount of water for agriculture. That situation is going to implode in the near future. So this scenario might happen.
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    Most plant life and farming is already powered by fusion energy.
    - DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
      Might want to stress it's space-based fusion energy just to troll the overly-optimistic folks around here
- f6v 3y ago
  > next 5-10 years if climate changes more, fusion energy becomes cheap etc. Fusion energy isn’t even expensive at the moment, it just doesn’t exist.
- conradev 3y ago
  This is a “read the article” situation: “Many analysts are confident the high-tech greenhouses can be operated profitably in the U.S. because they have been run successfully in Europe and Canada. Vertical farms are another story. No company has made money operating one on a large scale.” Greenhouses still use soil and the sun
- barathr 3y ago
  The Netherlands certainly does have profitable indoor farms, but the sort that the new startups are pushing are largely the uneconomic type. The two key factors: soil and sun. If you have to replace either, you're increasing your costs. Especially sun: if you use LEDs instead of solar illumination, it's hard to do it cheaply enough in the long run, nor produce calorie crops (as opposed to greens) -- there's simply an energy-in-energy-out balance that's hard to achieve. Well managed traditional greenhouses can do quite a lot.
- DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
  > they can easily become profitable in the next 5-10 years if [...] fusion energy becomes cheap Boy you're leaning rilly far out of one of those windows that vertical farms typically do not have
ec109685 3y ago
That paper was incredibly good. I bet many readers of it made substantial money shorting these companies. In it, it shows that for food staple crops, the selling price of the crops only makes up .1% of the cost to produce them, while for vegetables they sell for 9% of the cost to produce. Pretty damming. Is there a future though where renewables continue to get cheaper and LED tech improves that would address this or will it be forever foolhardy to replace the sun?
- antoniuschan99 3y ago
  This Exa Cognition video has some good insights on the state of Vertical Farming (2021) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnCQuwCtqJg&list=PLU8luVji9KQnFeNupPyvPyCO1E6px7eFA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnCQuwCtqJg&list=PLU8luVji9K...

cinntaile 3y ago

There is almost no data in that paper? No new research is presented. It's more like a meta-analysis but not really, is this an opinion piece?

barathr 3y ago
It's a paper we wrote for a CS workshop -- that means it's necessarily a short paper, one that pulls together various threads to make a new argument.

risyachka 3y ago

In US? Or in general? Because I am pretty sure I've read there is a lot of very profitable indoor farms in Netherlands and other EU countries. Also, even if they are currently not profitable in US, they can easily become profitable in the next 5-10 years if climate changes more, fusion energy becomes cheap etc. The technology itself vastly outperforms traditional farms.

mattmaroon 3y ago
Fusion energy becoming cheap in 5-10 years? You’re the most optimistic person on HN if you think that’s possible! It takes decades to build a fission plant and that’s with tech that already exists! I’d say the real path to viability is cheaper renewables and food and water becoming far more expensive. The western part of the US uses an unsustainable amount of water for agriculture. That situation is going to implode in the near future. So this scenario might happen.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  Most plant life and farming is already powered by fusion energy.
  - DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
    Might want to stress it's space-based fusion energy just to troll the overly-optimistic folks around here
f6v 3y ago
> next 5-10 years if climate changes more, fusion energy becomes cheap etc. Fusion energy isn’t even expensive at the moment, it just doesn’t exist.
conradev 3y ago
This is a “read the article” situation: “Many analysts are confident the high-tech greenhouses can be operated profitably in the U.S. because they have been run successfully in Europe and Canada. Vertical farms are another story. No company has made money operating one on a large scale.” Greenhouses still use soil and the sun
barathr 3y ago
The Netherlands certainly does have profitable indoor farms, but the sort that the new startups are pushing are largely the uneconomic type. The two key factors: soil and sun. If you have to replace either, you're increasing your costs. Especially sun: if you use LEDs instead of solar illumination, it's hard to do it cheaply enough in the long run, nor produce calorie crops (as opposed to greens) -- there's simply an energy-in-energy-out balance that's hard to achieve. Well managed traditional greenhouses can do quite a lot.
DemocracyFTW2 3y ago
> they can easily become profitable in the next 5-10 years if [...] fusion energy becomes cheap Boy you're leaning rilly far out of one of those windows that vertical farms typically do not have

ec109685 3y ago

That paper was incredibly good. I bet many readers of it made substantial money shorting these companies. In it, it shows that for food staple crops, the selling price of the crops only makes up .1% of the cost to produce them, while for vegetables they sell for 9% of the cost to produce. Pretty damming. Is there a future though where renewables continue to get cheaper and LED tech improves that would address this or will it be forever foolhardy to replace the sun?

antoniuschan99 3y ago
This Exa Cognition video has some good insights on the state of Vertical Farming (2021) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnCQuwCtqJg&list=PLU8luVji9KQnFeNupPyvPyCO1E6px7eFA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnCQuwCtqJg&list=PLU8luVji9K...