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

51–60 of 464 posts

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#51

Post by neonbjb »

There are other reasons to farm indoors (or in vertical farms) than electricity and water too.

Pests are one such reason. They are extremely difficult to control outdoors, but far simpler to do so inside. Both fertilizer and pesticide treatments (if necessary) can be far more specific - e.g. less wasteful and environmentally damaging) when done indoors. Similarly, inclement weather generally does not affect indoor farms.

There's also my favorite argument: if we're ever going to try to colonize space or other planets, we better be damned good at growing plants artificially. IMO every dollar spent improving this space gets us one step closer to unlinking our future from Earth's.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#52

Post by kibwen »

klodolph wrote: post #28
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…

Solar panels can be more efficient, but if your comparison is between “sunlight -> plants” and “sunlight -> solar panels -> electric lights -> plants”, you have to include the actual efficiency of e.g. photovoltaics and LEDs in your calculations. Photovoltaics these days have something around 15-20% efficiency and LEDs have conversion efficiency around 50-60%. The magenta grow lamps are colored for more efficient use…

Yes, and I updated my comment just as you were posting this to mention losses due to reconversion. However, also keep in mind that even large efficiency losses can still lean in favor of photovoltaics/LEDs, because plants only use about 10% of the sun's energy in the first place.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#53

Post by gm »

This is one of those headlines that are missing the word "yet" at the end. All of the problems brought up are solvable, given enough time and resources.

Also given some f-ing ingenuity. This quote is just disingenuous: "the savings are canceled out by the land required to install the solar panels". Can't you just install solar panels vertically as well? A single web search for "vertical solar panels" brings up alternatives and even this article from 2017: https://offgridworld.com/3d-solar-panel-towers-increase-ener... . I'm sure a thorough search will solve that problem right away.

I just think the author has a beef against this type of farming and is playing dumb to validate his opinion.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#54

Post by jseliger »

SimianLogic2 wrote: post #43

This article is more about indoor farming than vertical farming (is it even vertical if there's only one row?). I grow lettuce indoors. It serves as a nice houseplant and fresh source of salad greens for lunch. It's fairly new, so the cost isn't that much different than just buying lettuce. Once I start building my own "pods" instead of buying the brand-name pods, though, I expect it'll be a bit cheaper than buying 4…

Have you written comprehensively about the system you've set up and how it works? I've thought about a Zipgrow system or similar: https://shop.zipgrow.com/products/small?variant=316809164227..., but, as you can see, it's fairly costly to set up. I don't think it'll be cheaper than the grocery store, but it also seems fun and like the final product may taste better.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#56

Post by Majromax »

gm wrote: post #53

This is one of those headlines that are missing the word "yet" at the end. All of the problems brought up are solvable, given enough time and resources. Also given some f-ing ingenuity. This quote is just disingenuous: "the savings are canceled out by the land required to install the solar panels". Can't you just install solar panels vertically as well? A single web search for "vertical solar panels" brings up altern…

> This quote is just disingenuous: "the savings are canceled out by the land required to install the solar panels". Can't you just install solar panels vertically as well?

More to the point, solar panels don't need to be installed on arable land. Solar panels can be installed in low-fertility areas like deserts; offshore wind turbines are absolutely not displacing farmland.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#57

Post by the_gastropod »

SimianLogic2 wrote: post #43

This article is more about indoor farming than vertical farming (is it even vertical if there's only one row?). I grow lettuce indoors. It serves as a nice houseplant and fresh source of salad greens for lunch. It's fairly new, so the cost isn't that much different than just buying lettuce. Once I start building my own "pods" instead of buying the brand-name pods, though, I expect it'll be a bit cheaper than buying 4…

I understood the point to be more about the energy inputs. The gist of it is: plants are more efficient at capturing energy from the sun directly than indirectly via solar panels -> light bulbs -> plants (which seems obvious, when you state it that way).

The only thing that makes vertical farming make any financial sense, today, is the access to cheap (subsidized) fossil fuels.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#58

Post by yongjik »

high_byte wrote: post #6
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.

exactly... you can have a farm in the middle of the city and a solar farm in the middle of the desert...

You can also have an airport in the middle of a city and an apartment complex in the middle of the desert - there's nothing that stops them technologically. The problem is that they don't make economical sense.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#59

Post by maxharris »

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. The vertical farm is a paradox unless fossil fuels provide the energy. In that case, there’s not much sustainable about it.

This entire piece is based on the assumption that the only sources of energy are solar panels and fossil fuels. This is false. According to the US Department of Energy, 19.6% of the energy produced in 2019 is nuclear. In that same year, 7.1% was from wind, 7.0% was hydroelectric, 1.4% from biomass, 0.4% geothermal. Only 1.7% was photovoltaics! https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427

If we look into the relatively near future, fusion energy is going to account for a rapidly increasing share of energy production by the end of this decade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4

Post reply on HN