Live data from Hacker News

Underwater greenhouses are growing strawberries

washingtonpost.com

41–44 of 44 posts

Re: Underwater greenhouses are growing strawberries

#41
post #34
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You compare apples to oranges. Octopi would need food to live and that food is a huge cost in resources. Octopi consume a feed that could have been human to begin with. Plants need only water and reused plant material or any other natural fertilizer.

Not, we are talking about space here. 1) First of all, this space is of public nature. We could earn a lot of money for example, if we'll convert Central Park in our private artichoke's field but this will never occur. We could also dream about to privatize the mediterranean marine platform just for our own profit but this is against the current laws. If you can build a greenhouse underwater, everybody could also bui…

> ...don't destroy your 'greenway' with their trawl nets

(ouch, is 'greenhouse' of course).

Re: Underwater greenhouses are growing strawberries

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that they take in ocean water that then evaporates as the source of water. This means a very stable humidity, in addition to stable temperature, essentially for free. Also, the oceans absorb most of the CO2 emitted by various processes, so if you evaporate it I would guess it comes back out into the air.

Salt is toxic to most plants.

the evaporation does not contain salt

Re: Underwater greenhouses are growing strawberries

#43

"I see possibilities for developing countries where harsh conditions make it difficult for plants to grow." I wonder what the economics are. This can't possibly be cheaper than traditional greenhouses?

Maybe in desertic and hot countries they are cheaper

Well, how could be cheaper?. Soil and light in deserts are practically free, and you can build an insulated underground room, live in the same building and go to the work just walking. Not need to spend gasoline moving a ship and also spend electricity in air compressors.

This is agriculture without polinizators; not correct light spectrum; much higher production costs that earth based companies for the same common products in the market; and high probability of losing the harvest. Not telling the investors that thousands of marine organisms will cover any external transparent surface in a few months (blocking all the light if not regularly removed); or that their investment could end just buried by sand; or that the master plan is based in obtaining permits for eight different organisms (and explain them that you need to jump over most current marine laws). It seems that they not even asked a oceanographer what are those thing named 'water masses' and how they move.

Do they want to use copper sulfate for potato fungus? Is super-toxic for marine forms of life. Do they want to use lots of manure? Is not legal to deliberately dump manure in the sea and a risk of faecal bacteria contamination for beaches. Is their plastic fabric covered by tasty green microscopic algae guaranteed against sea urchin's mandibles?.

Bad interest conflicts with local fishermen, algae harvesters, ecologists?. How they plan to deal with this?.

Insurance or private security? This is a high risk activity for the workers. Aquaculture companies need often to hire private security for marine cages (because the risk of thief).

Either they can provide a reasonable anwser to this questions or they are not serious players (or is just a scam).

Post reply on HN