Is Vertical Farming Really the Future of Agriculture?

Post by llukas » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 4:37 AM UTC

woah wrote: post #68

oh_sigh wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding #2, I wonder if it may be possible to get greater than 100% efficiency here by panels absorbing a wide spectrum of light, but only emitting on the certain frequencies that are generally most beneficial for growing/fruiting plants?

That would require the solar panel to be more efficient at capturing solar energy than a plant

Post by rorykoehler » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 4:38 AM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #37

nostromo wrote: post #28

There's a lot of misunderstanding of agriculture in this thread. 1) No, land is not expensive. In agricultural areas, land is quite cheap. Organizing shelves of crops vertically solves for a problem that isn't actually a problem. 2) The sun is free and electricity isn't cheap. Putting plants indoors and then buying electricity to create light is going to be expensive compared to using the free sun. (The absurdity of…

Good points all. The aesthetic appeal of this sort of indoor farming, and the space-age-ness gives the topic a tendency to over-excitement. I'd also add (4) Mostly, urban/vertical/cubicle farms produce high quality/price leafy herbs & veg. It's not replacing vast cereal fields. That's a very small portion of agriculture overall, definitely by land use but also by most measures. All that said, the are real space-age-i…

Post by olly67 » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

T2_t2 wrote: post #57

pippy wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

vertical farming will only be economically viable with near free power and massive transport taxes. Nuclear power would be the only realistic viable option. Given the damage that agriculture has done to the environment, vertical farming would be a smart choice for humanity. but sadly with out current perceptions of nuclear power and the stranglehold that globalism has, it will likely never happen.

> Given the damage that agriculture has done to the environment Has it? I thought that the worst thing for the environment was subsistence farming.

Post by tathougies » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 4:43 AM UTC

mulmen wrote: post #52

tathougies wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone here is saying there's not enough light. That's not actually true. The sun produces more than enough energy to grow all the plants. The issue is one of distribution. You have to distribute very particular wave lengths of light to the entirety of the structure and all the plants. This is a hard problem. Mirrors are inefficient. Fiber optics don't do exactly what you want, and plus, a lot of the light energy i…

The black leaf thing is interesting. Is that an oversimplification or do plants really only absorb visible light?

Post by tathougies » Fri, Jul 06, 2018, 4:44 AM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #67

tathougies wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Leafy greens don't need pollination. It's in your best interest to avoid flowering if you want product anyone will eat. 2. Very few food plants are dioecious, and the ones that are (like asparagus and dates) are either ones where the fruit don't matter or are not likely to be grown indoors

While #1 (and your general point) is correct monoecious crops still have to be pollinated if the product is a fruit or seed. The stone fruits for instance are monoecious with male and female parts of flower on same plant unlike marijuana or dates where plants are either male of female. But this isn't leaf crops as you mention. In some species pollination occurs generally just with wind or movement (rather than insect…