Live data from Hacker News

Vertical farming does not save space

lowtechmagazine.com

161–170 of 464 posts

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#161

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.

If you collect the rain coming down, someone downstream ends up with no water. Water is not free.

Not really, since other than the small amount of water that gets shipped out in the plant, the rest is just released right back out. Besides, as long as you're only collecting the water that falls directly on you as rain, you're not taking any more than your lot; someone 'downstream' can also collect water that falls directly on them.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you placing these solar panels? Why can't those locations be rooftop hydroponic farms instead?

Because rooftop hydroponic farms have to be tended to almost daily, or at least for planting/harvesting. Solar panels don't need nearly as much maintenance and allow you to concentrate the actual growing operations for the economies of scale. Do you mind if I ask why you're so against the idea?

> Do you mind if I ask why you're so against the idea?

Because it is clearly inefficient to convert sunlight -> electricity -> simulated sunlight.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#164
post #3

"Vertical Farming Does Not Save Space [when exclusively considering solar power]"

(And wheat) - do the same calculation with rice or potatoes and I’m sure he’d have different results.

And the suggestion that one can live on a loaf of bread, using that price to extrapolate a yearly cost, it's a true worst case scenario.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I really don't think by the end of this decade there will be any commercial fusion production. I'm sure we will be closer but it is still some decades away. ITER proposes to follow up their current research reactor with a successor (DEMO) which they plan to sta…

I don't know about commercial by 2030 but leap frogging ITER doesn't seem far fetched at all because of the all signficant advances in superconductors achieved after ITER was planned out. Also, if the new superconductors do work out, it's very likely that all other forms of energy generation and grid level storage will become almost immediately obsolete and any additional focus moving forward would be only on improvi…

I'm a nuclear engineer working at a laboratory known for fusion research. Commercial fusion power at any scale is not happening by 2030. 2040 or 2050 are more realistic and may still be a stretch.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#166
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since the vertical farm does save space in the abstract (just not necessarily once accounting for space needed for electricity generation) I severely doubt that. Solar panels are maybe 30% efficient. So 10-acres of glass-roofs need to be replaced by 30-acres of solar panels just to account for this inefficiency (let alone other inefficiencies: such as wiring, inverter, batteries, and LEDs). Maybe 50-acres of solar…

> Solar panels are maybe 30% efficient. So 10-acres of glass-roofs need to be replaced by 30-acres of solar panels Not remotely. Plants are also extremely inefficient, converting only about 1% of the solar energy that falls for their use. [1] Most of this inefficiency is from solar energy being in the form of frequencies that the plants can't use, but solar panels can. So the panels can capture this energy, then funn…

> I've read a bunch on this, and haven't been able to find an authoritative source for what the efficiency conversion is -- how many acres of solar panels power how many acres of vegetables, and is it greater or less than 1:1? -- but it's certainly not as simplistic as "solar would need 3x more land because they are 30% efficient."

I own a townhome, so my only real ability to grow plants is through a grow-light connected to electricity.

As such, I've spent some time calculating the PAR values of a decent grow-light, as well as the amount of PAR that natural sunlight gives. Plants need a ludicrous amount of PAR (basically blue + red lights, green not needed cause green just bounces off of plants).

Sunlight is mostly broad spectrum: broader than plants need and therefore a source of inefficiency (green light is wasted) that LEDs can somewhat replace.

Grow-lights have a benefit that they can be placed very close to the plant (maybe just 1-foot away) to "focus" the energy a bit better. Nonetheless, the amount of PAR / PPFD from a typical day sun (or even a cloudy day) far exceeds what you'd get from 500W or even 2000W grow lights.

--------

Its just a hobby of mine, and I'm not growing anything especially hard (just Basil, which is really easy to grow... but Basil is a summer plant that really wants sunlight).

Still, once you start calculating PAR and actually mapping out how much electricity your "emulated sunlight" needs, you'll realize how grossly inefficient that "solar panel -> electricity -> LED" plan really is.

EDIT: Natural sun is like 2000 PPFD or something FAR in excess of what most plants need. Still, a good growlight solution might hit ~1000 PPFD constantly. Lets take this 650W LED and think about it: https://allgreenhydroponics.com/collections/american-made-le...

You'll get ~500 to ~1000 PPFD across a 4'x4' or 16-square foot area from that 650W LED (and most of that light is focused on the center: you'll want to overlap your lights a bit for more consistency).

Then think about how much solar panels you need to power a 650W LED for the 16-hours / day your typical plant would want (to account for the lesser PPFD indoor plants get, you run the lights for a bit longer than sunrise-sunset).

Just some napkin math. Nothing serious here: just guestimating the area in my head.

----------

EDIT: Now it should be noted: I've heard of good hydroponic greenhouses that have the "do both" approach: glass roofs to let the sun in most of the time, and LEDs to augment the natural sun (cloudy / rainy days, as well as winter-settings when you have fewer hours of sun). The sun isn't nearly as consistent as we'd like, but... that means that you need something aside from solar power powering those LEDs.

But the concept of building a all-LED underground (or "inside a building") without any natural light just... seems grossly inefficient to me. Such a setup only seems useful to those growing contraband IMO.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#167
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercial nuclear takes up a lot of space, to the point where replacing it with solar is surprisingly close. For example the the Brunswick nuclear power plant in North Carolina, covers 1,200 acres or 4,860,000 square meters for 1,858 MW = 382 w/m2. It’s stated lifetime capacity factor is 75% which is much higher than solar, but that’s ignoring the long construction and decommissioning process afterwards. You can fin…

That's the whole land belonging to the site, most of which is nature, not the plant itself, which looks like less than 200 acres, including the car parks. In any case, it's not close at all either for that specific example or in general, not least considering that a nuclear plant can produce 24/7 and that solar often does not reach peak production because of the weather. " A solar PV facility must have an installed c…

Look through several nuclear locations and ~1000 acres is fairly typical. In theory they could be more compact, but security concerns etc means nobody puts 2GW of nuclear on a 200 acre site.

1,000 acres, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Valley_Nuclear_Power_St...

1,782-acre, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Stati...

2,767 acres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Nuclear_Generating_St... for just 1,190 MW.

Some are significantly more compact for example 391-acre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catawba_Nuclear_Station, but that’s surrounded by water.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#168
post #116

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…

Commercial nuclear takes up a lot of space, to the point where replacing it with solar is surprisingly close. For example the the Brunswick nuclear power plant in North Carolina, covers 1,200 acres or 4,860,000 square meters for 1,858 MW = 382 w/m2. It’s stated lifetime capacity factor is 75% which is much higher than solar, but that’s ignoring the long construction and decommissioning process afterwards. You can fin…

You're saying that a couple of 50 year old reactors when including a safety zone and adjusting for lifetime capacity outputs about twice the maximum power of commercial solar panels before adjusting for capacity factor.

When you adjust PV for capacity factor the difference ends up at over an order of magnitude.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because rooftop hydroponic farms have to be tended to almost daily, or at least for planting/harvesting. Solar panels don't need nearly as much maintenance and allow you to concentrate the actual growing operations for the economies of scale. Do you mind if I ask why you're so against the idea?

> Do you mind if I ask why you're so against the idea? Because it is clearly inefficient to convert sunlight -> electricity -> simulated sunlight.

But you're ignoring the inefficiency of building separate hydroponic operations on individual rooftops and driving around to all of them, etc. Also as SamBam mention above, you don't have to make a simulated sun. Instead it can work as sun -> electricity -> narrow-spectrum-light-that-plants-convert-at-higher-efficiency. You might even genetically modify plants to be more productive with the smallest spectrum possible.
Post reply on HN