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

281–290 of 464 posts

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#281

Post by elihu »

> All this criticism also applies to vertical farms where lettuce and tomatoes are grown. In this case, there is a significant reduction in water use. These companies are profitable, but only because the process relies on a supply of cheap fossil fuels. If solar panels supplied the energy, the extra costs and space for the energy supply would again cancel out the savings in terms of space and costs. The only advantage of a vertical farm would then be the shorter transport distances. Still, we could just as well make transport between town and countryside more sustainable.

This may be true, but I'm having trouble reconciling it with the notion I've read elsewhere that solar farms are producing some of the cheapest energy prices per KW/h. (Though maybe once you factor in energy storage it comes out more expensive than natural gas or coal?) Anyways, if these companies are currently profitable at current energy prices, that seems to imply that being profitable on 100% renewable energy isn't that much of a stretch.

(Though the criticism that lettuce and tomatoes aren't a good source of calories/fat/protein and aren't enough to feed a population, if that was your goal, remains valid.)

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#282

Post by monkeycantype »

jobe_br wrote: post #279
maxharris wrote: post #59

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…

Nevermind that land used for energy often isn’t suitable for farming, so … even with the hypothesis, limited as it is, it’s flawed.

Yes this could save a lot of arable or environmentally significant land, even if it didn't save a net m^2

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#284

Post by Justsignedup »

maxharris wrote: post #59

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…

to add:

- 95%+ reduction in water usage

- no need for any pesticides because... boom no pests

- no need for any other treatments to reduce disease

- can be powered in any way

- does not need to have complex freight

Sure it doesn't "save space" if you make a ton of win/solar farms. Sure. But its not about saving space as much as solving a huge logistics problem, water problem, pesticide problem, and even the taste problem (food harvested recently will taste better than frozen food transported for weeks/months)

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#285

Post by offtop5 »

maxharris wrote: post #59

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…

Why can't you just open the windows. I'm imagining some victorian-like device which reflects sunlight around indoors

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#286

Post by yellowapple »

jshevek wrote: post #272
throwaway894345 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent's point, and I don't know if it's well-founded or not (and consequently I'm not endorsing it, only clarifying), is that adding more waste doesn't seem to worsen the problem. As an aside, if you must snark, it's best to do it when you're following the thread of the conversation.

Yes, even further the guidelines suggest that snark has no place on HN. One day we may undo the damage done by the massive influx of C19 redditers. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: Replying to the misrepresentation of my words: I did not state that HN is turning into Reddit. HN is not turning into reddit. The culture of HN has been damaged, however, by the lack of acculturation of last years inf…

Those same guidelines state, and I quote:

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

Maybe you ought to try following those guidelines before throwing them at other HN users?

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#287

Post by gh02t »

dataflow wrote: post #232
gh02t wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What signs do you see that it might work at all (and that it's not a hopeless endeavor)? As a layman it's so hard to understand how something so hot and so confined could ever be made to react reliably with continuous fuel and energy production to produce power on a large scale.

Stars and fusion nuclear weapons exist.

And I'm only half joking. The energy yield of fusion is there and the basic physics are pretty well understood. Progress has been agonizingly slow but steady. We generally understand what needs to be done to get there, but it's a slow and complicated process that will take a long time and several more expensive, large-scale tests like ITER to push it along. The payoff is still a ways away and the up front costs are high, so barring investment on the scale of the Manhattan project it is something we will have to continue slowly grinding away at. The upside is fusion research is truly pushing the bounds of engineering, which will continue to yield benefits in other areas along the way.

Edit: I'll also add that we have already built fusion reactors, we just haven't gotten them efficient enough that they generate enough energy to sustain themselves.

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#288

Post by Nasrudith »

dale_glass wrote: post #171
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make nuclear energy successful you need to stop fear mongering, and invest in improving technology. With scale, it will make far cheaper and reliable energy source than anything on earth. But it will hardly happen when politicians tirelessly promote solar & wind, while increasing the regulation of nuclear energy. And politicians act this way because of said fear mongering, which affects the public deeply.

Why bother? What reason is there to believe a generator with blades attached to it is going to lose to a generator with a containment building and reactor attached to it?

Because it is cheaper to build many blades and posts. Plus economies of scale - wind is more factory scale in efficency as it is mostly assembly. The containment building alone is construction scale and is inherently pretty one off in requiring geology and planning as opposed to "look at weather patterns and slap it down".

I am personally of the point of view that if we went on a nuclear power plant building spree back in the day to replace coal plants/provide for growing needs and used breeder reactors to deal with waste we would be far better off. Renewables are cheaper per kWhr now however. For the future, who knows if fusion or renewable will work better for terrestrial grid applications once fusion reaches the point of a positive energy balance?

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#289

Post by Guest19023892 »

jseliger wrote: post #54
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.

If you're looking for something more cost effective, you might want to consider building your own with some LED strips and a driver. You can get higher quality components and a lot more power than kits typically sold by companies.

I'm building a 2ftx2ft indoor herb garden for my apartment right now. I found the LEDgardener to be a good resource and forum for getting started.

https://ledgardener.com

Re: Vertical farming does not save space

#290

Post by tinco »

pfdietz wrote: post #275
tinco wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an honest question. I don't know which specific regulations, I've never built one but I have heard those who did lament the cost and trouble in even obtaining a site. From what I can see fission reactors are doing just fine in France and Belgium. I don't know the specific numbers but the French don't seem worse off economically, despite having the greenest grid on the planet. Fission has a number of disadvanta…

It was a leading question, pretending to claim that regulation was the cause. Nice walkback, though. Nuclear is in a bad state in France. Their recent attempts to build new reactors have gone massively over budget. Existing reactors are aging and it looks like they cannot replace them. Fission has some disadvantages over fusion, but those disadvantages won't make fusion cheaper than fission (the costs of fuel and was…

> It was a leading question, pretending to claim that regulation was the cause.

I just stated the opposite, are you calling me a liar? And then you mock me for crediting your argument, does that make you feel good? Are we like fighting or something?

Post reply on HN