4 ms·

The point of vertical farming is that land is scarce (particularly in cities) and the idea is to reduce the footprint of the farms. So yeah, of course what you’

The point of vertical farming is that land is scarce (particularly in cities) and the idea is to reduce the footprint of the farms. So yeah, of course what you’re suggesting works since it already works today…

romanovcode 3y ago
If you go 50km out of any major city (which is 30min drive with a truck) you always see lots and lots of space that can be used for farming. I literally don't get it. Why not just incentivize more farming work like reduce taxation?
- ta988 3y ago
  Because then you get money from traditional banks which costs you a lot. VC money is free, especially if you fail. And the next time is always easier because they like people who failed "they learned something".
  - romanovcode 3y ago
    You are right, and it makes me sad. If a guy shows up and says "Give me 25 mil to open 10 acre potato farm" nobody would give him money because there is no chance of 10x+ return on investment. However his contribution to society is 10x+ than 99% of the startups.
    - blovescoffee 3y ago
      Many many many farmers rely on loans to start their ventures. VCs fund because of possible returns to them not to society. Banks and Gov do the heavy lifting on ag funding.
- swarnie 3y ago
  Maybe in some countries (i'm assuming this is about the US?) Over here you drive 50km out of a major city and you've probably passed through a second and arrived in a third.
  - romanovcode 3y ago
    Was actually referring to bigger countries in EU (and smaller countries in east-EU). But would apply to US as well.
- RGamma 3y ago
  Depends on place. Look at satellite images of Germany or parts of Europe in general and it looks like it's all farms with some fake forest interspersed (the "forest" is itself farmland for wood). Very few places left that are free from intrusion on land (and none if you count biochemical or atmospheric disturbance). And it's mostly spots that can't be exploited for physical infrastructure, tourism or agriculture. I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations with a farmer acquaintance of mine. To preserve a sizable naturally developing habitat you'd need to at least halve Germany's population given current consumption patterns...
ta988 3y ago
But where are the calculations showing that the electricity, chemicals and equipment needs and their ecological cost are worth it Most of these places are producing herbs and salads which are low weight and low volume per consumer. And they have a volume of waste that's pretty colossal (growing media for example but also electrical equipment that failed and chemical containers) all of which almost doesn't exist in traditional farming if you measure by unit produced.
- chewmieser 3y ago
  Yes this is how new developments occur. First it’s prohibitively expensive and then we figure out ways to reduce the costs/waste/etc. This is in its infancy and I’m sure it’ll make more sense as it develops more.
  - ahartmetz 3y ago
    Replacing large amounts of free energy from the sun isn't getting cheaper anytime soon.
    - chewmieser 3y ago
      Who says you need to replace it? Solar, windows… Fiber optics? Using molten salt to store and release energy… I’m sure there’s plenty of ways to use the sun’s energy. And again, this is why we iterate… It’s never a win at first… Gotta take some risks like all new ideas
      - antisthenes 3y ago
        > Who says you need to replace it? Solar, windows Windows? So a semi-transparent layer to help isolate the farm from the elements? Kind of like a greenhouse? That thing that existed for several hundred years. > I’m sure there’s plenty of ways to use the sun’s energy. Solar panel to Inverter to Battery to LED lights is just a way to throw away some of that energy. Sure, you're still using it, but a LED is never as efficient as sunlight.
mc32 3y ago
Why on earth would you want to take farming “footprint” and transpose it in an expensive real estate environment like a city where it would need much more intensive energy to produce anything? There are a few products that are viable, but not very many. Moving footprint from farmland to city is the opposite of reducing carbon footprint. It’s foolhardy. Terracing hillsides comes before vertical farming. Vertical farming is an “eversilly” project.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  My other response is that air quality is relatively bad in cities compared to middle of nowhere.

romanovcode 3y ago

If you go 50km out of any major city (which is 30min drive with a truck) you always see lots and lots of space that can be used for farming. I literally don't get it. Why not just incentivize more farming work like reduce taxation?

ta988 3y ago
Because then you get money from traditional banks which costs you a lot. VC money is free, especially if you fail. And the next time is always easier because they like people who failed "they learned something".
- romanovcode 3y ago
  You are right, and it makes me sad. If a guy shows up and says "Give me 25 mil to open 10 acre potato farm" nobody would give him money because there is no chance of 10x+ return on investment. However his contribution to society is 10x+ than 99% of the startups.
  - blovescoffee 3y ago
    Many many many farmers rely on loans to start their ventures. VCs fund because of possible returns to them not to society. Banks and Gov do the heavy lifting on ag funding.
swarnie 3y ago
Maybe in some countries (i'm assuming this is about the US?) Over here you drive 50km out of a major city and you've probably passed through a second and arrived in a third.
- romanovcode 3y ago
  Was actually referring to bigger countries in EU (and smaller countries in east-EU). But would apply to US as well.
RGamma 3y ago
Depends on place. Look at satellite images of Germany or parts of Europe in general and it looks like it's all farms with some fake forest interspersed (the "forest" is itself farmland for wood). Very few places left that are free from intrusion on land (and none if you count biochemical or atmospheric disturbance). And it's mostly spots that can't be exploited for physical infrastructure, tourism or agriculture. I've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations with a farmer acquaintance of mine. To preserve a sizable naturally developing habitat you'd need to at least halve Germany's population given current consumption patterns...

ta988 3y ago

But where are the calculations showing that the electricity, chemicals and equipment needs and their ecological cost are worth it Most of these places are producing herbs and salads which are low weight and low volume per consumer. And they have a volume of waste that's pretty colossal (growing media for example but also electrical equipment that failed and chemical containers) all of which almost doesn't exist in traditional farming if you measure by unit produced.

chewmieser 3y ago
Yes this is how new developments occur. First it’s prohibitively expensive and then we figure out ways to reduce the costs/waste/etc. This is in its infancy and I’m sure it’ll make more sense as it develops more.
- ahartmetz 3y ago
  Replacing large amounts of free energy from the sun isn't getting cheaper anytime soon.
  - chewmieser 3y ago
    Who says you need to replace it? Solar, windows… Fiber optics? Using molten salt to store and release energy… I’m sure there’s plenty of ways to use the sun’s energy. And again, this is why we iterate… It’s never a win at first… Gotta take some risks like all new ideas
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      > Who says you need to replace it? Solar, windows Windows? So a semi-transparent layer to help isolate the farm from the elements? Kind of like a greenhouse? That thing that existed for several hundred years. > I’m sure there’s plenty of ways to use the sun’s energy. Solar panel to Inverter to Battery to LED lights is just a way to throw away some of that energy. Sure, you're still using it, but a LED is never as efficient as sunlight.

mc32 3y ago

Why on earth would you want to take farming “footprint” and transpose it in an expensive real estate environment like a city where it would need much more intensive energy to produce anything? There are a few products that are viable, but not very many. Moving footprint from farmland to city is the opposite of reducing carbon footprint. It’s foolhardy. Terracing hillsides comes before vertical farming. Vertical farming is an “eversilly” project.

Scoundreller 3y ago
My other response is that air quality is relatively bad in cities compared to middle of nowhere.