Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vertical farming does not save space

lowtechmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 464 posts

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#31

Post by Misdicorl »

kibwen wrote: post #7

> Artificial lighting saves land because plants can be grown above each other, but if the electricity for the lighting comes from solar panels, then the savings are canceled out by the land required to install the solar panels. This doesn't have to be the case. Plants don't use all the sunlight that hits them, because available light isn't generally the bottleneck in plant growth. Note how most plants are green, whic…

Even more to the point- solar panels live quite easily on roofs, deserts, highway medians. Quite a bit tougher to put functioning agriculture in these places!

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#32

Post by wernercd »

mannerheim wrote: post #5
novembermike wrote: post #2

This ignores nuclear power. It also ignores the fact that you can put solar panels in places that you can't put farms such as the desert.

You can put farms in the desert. Some of the most productive farmland is in deserts. Arizona and California are both noted for producing large quantities of high-quality cotton.

and those productive farms also use copious amounts of water that isn't available otherwise. (IE: piped in from rivers far away causing no shortage of ancillary problems: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/magazine/the-water-wars-o... )

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#33

Post by macspoofing »

villasv wrote: post #26
ravi-delia wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That being said, exactly 0 of the listed examples are actually bad to consider free. If you don't collect rain coming down, it'll just come down anyway.

Interfering with the hydrologic cycle can impact soil quality and may result in bunch of biome effects. It can also have good effects instead of bad effects, though. It really depends on the local dynamics.

>Interfering with the hydrologic cycle can impact soil quality and may result in bunch of biome effects.

Sure but people also need to eat.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#35

Post by [deleted] »

macspoofing wrote: post #27
Nition wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say a plant needs 1/10th of actual full sun during the day, could you theoretically remove the electricity step entirely but "just" (putting "just" in quotes because I'm sure it wouldn't be easy) having some sort of fancy mirror setup on a 10 storey building to send 1/10th of the sunlight hitting the roof to each floor?

Mirrors take up space too.

[deleted]

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#36

Post by cool_dude85 »

mattferderer wrote: post #15

An interesting proposal was discussed by some people on Twitter recently. They discussed it around using Bitcoin mining to create a larger demand for electricity when prices are cheap. Then when an event happens such as in Texas recently, electricity prices would go up, causing mining rigs to turn off since it's no longer economical. There would then be more available electricity for heating homes & businesses. One w…

So, burn tons of fossil fuels to mine bitcoin, thus forcing tons of fossil fuels to be burned to build new generating capacity? Nope, can't think of any issues with it.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#37

Post by klodolph »

abeppu wrote: post #25
Klwohu wrote: post #10

It doesn't grow many crops, either. I can see it being useful for restricted spaces like balconies or roof top gardens in cities, also because unlike soil gardening the weight is much less even accounting for the hydroponic growing solution. And of course, the gem of the new "industry," the place in Jackson which is a special case, tucked away up in the mountains where it can be hard to get in and out without delays,…

My understanding was part of the reason we get bland veggies in the supermarket is that selection has been for being able to stay good for a longer period and not be damaged during shipping. If vertical farms have less time between harvesting and actual eating, maybe we can pick tastier varietals?

That may be the reason for bland veggies in the supermarkets, but my personal experience with hydroponics is that they’re noticeable blander than what you get at the supermarket.

If your goal is better veggies, it is often possible to source them just by trying different grocery stores. Some grocery stores rely heavily on larger (national) distributors, and other stores reliably provide a decent selection of locally sourced foods.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#38

Post by ampdepolymerase »

kibwen wrote: post #7

> Artificial lighting saves land because plants can be grown above each other, but if the electricity for the lighting comes from solar panels, then the savings are canceled out by the land required to install the solar panels. This doesn't have to be the case. Plants don't use all the sunlight that hits them, because available light isn't generally the bottleneck in plant growth. Note how most plants are green, whic…

Depending on the geography and building design, you can carry light to the plants via optic fiber. They act as a light pipe/optical waveguide. No need for any photovoltaic solar panels. However this design necessitates a skyscraper in the middle of the desert with nothing else blocking line of sight. Great if you are in the Middle East. Not so great for New York or Seattle. For the latter cities, a permanent barge on the Hudson/Puget with a fiber optic connection could be a solution (the losses would be great and it may not be much cheaper than using electricity, geography and land costs will have to be carefully accounted for).

Here are some simplified designs for home use: https://www.lowes.com/pl/Tubular-skylights-Skylights-accesso...

Some commercial suppliers: http://www.huvco.com/

The technology is very cut and dry. If you are a well funded startup, it may be more economical to acquire an optic fiber skylight manufacturer instead of ordering OEM.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#39

Post by macspoofing »

villasv wrote: post #16

Vertical Farming saves space at the expense of electricity. I think the argument against them has to be along the lines of this trade-off >>possibly No one cares if the net result is using more space if this means farms closer to the city and larger solar farms far away.

>No one cares if the net result is using more space if this means farms closer to the city and larger solar farms far away.

Solar energy is highly diffuse, so you need huge swaths of land to collect it, which has detrimental impact on any ecosystem you place them in.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#40

Post by 0wis »

A more long term viewpoint would be interesting. All the affirmations in the article are done with the current state of the art. Extensive farming has improved for thousands of years. Vertical farming is very new and room for improvement in a controlled environnement could be huge. Moreover, the main critic compare solar to fossil energy costs (in dollar and space). What about going nuclear ?

Moreover we always learn a lot when we go sideways. What about useful discoveries for space exploration ?

Post reply on HN