Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business • Hacker News Board

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#61

Post by millzlane » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 1:38 PM UTC

I had an idea for "Vertical farming" years ago. And when I started seeing it in the headlines I thought finally someone has executed the idea of using parking garage like structures and mirrors to direct the free sunlight to the different levels to grow food in vertical structures.

Maybe the Egyptians did it, maybe not. (https://www.ehow.com/facts_7391989_mirror-egyptian-lighting-...) But I always wondered why stuff that literally grows on trees isn't cheap and abundant.

And then I met a man, on my smoke break on the Johns Hopkins University Campus who said: "If there is something being given away for free, there is a man in line waiting to sell it to you"

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#62

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:02 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #55

Ekaros wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not even flying them in vs vertical farm. But vertical farm vs more traditional greenhouse solutions. Where you can do all the circulation control, but also can use natural light and don't need large concrete structures. There is very few countries in the world that don't have enough land so that they need vertical farms.

I've always thought it a bit odd that they picked up steam first in the U.S. for this reason. The economic case is vastly more sensible in Singapore or some other city-state.

[deleted]

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#63

Post by im3w1l » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

tfourb wrote: post #15

Indoor and especially vertical farming might be worthwhile in some edge cases but all the fancy Startup babble does conveniently ignore that you lose access to thousands of dollars worth of free services provided by nature: irrigation, fertility, pest control, sun light for crying out loud. The idea that more than a fraction of food production can profitably move indoors is laughable and VCs would be much better off…

I reckon it's not based on economic sense. Rather it's about aesthetics. It feels good to look at your vertical farm, it's a nice little hobby to maintain I'm sure, and a certain pride to eat your own produce. And so people try to rationalize this and work backwards into an explanation for why it's a logical thing to do, but really it's just about that warm fuzzy feeling of having your own vertical farm.

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#64

Post by CharlieDigital » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #55

Ekaros wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not even flying them in vs vertical farm. But vertical farm vs more traditional greenhouse solutions. Where you can do all the circulation control, but also can use natural light and don't need large concrete structures. There is very few countries in the world that don't have enough land so that they need vertical farms.

I've always thought it a bit odd that they picked up steam first in the U.S. for this reason. The economic case is vastly more sensible in Singapore or some other city-state.

> a bit odd that they picked up steam first in the U.S. for this reason

My sense is that it was riding a wave of "local" and "farm to table".

If you're in a city like LA or NY where there's a lack of space AND local demand for a premium priced product that can be delivered year round AND more awareness/marketability for such products (local + sustainable), the economics are different than versus growing a commodity product in Boise, Idaho.

It's like the farmers in Asia that grow super premium fruits (Japan and Taiwan come to mind). It only makes sense in the context of a market that will pay the price premium.

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#65

Post by falcolas » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

afshin wrote: post #42

A self-contained solar powered cargo-container-sized box that can create calories with minimal top-ups of material might make some marginal areas habitable.

I would think that a greenhouse type roof/sides would remove the inefficiencies of sunlight -> solar panels -> LEDs.

Horizontal space is not something we lack, even in most marginal areas.

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#66

Post by Alex3917 » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:09 PM UTC

tfourb wrote: post #15

Indoor and especially vertical farming might be worthwhile in some edge cases but all the fancy Startup babble does conveniently ignore that you lose access to thousands of dollars worth of free services provided by nature: irrigation, fertility, pest control, sun light for crying out loud. The idea that more than a fraction of food production can profitably move indoors is laughable and VCs would be much better off…

Cows are usually started outdoors and then finished indoors. There's no reason why farming couldn't follow a similar hybrid approach. That way you could e.g. grow tropical crops in New England, but still not have to pay for the majority of the required resources.

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#67

Post by mikeryan » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:18 PM UTC

CharlieDigital wrote: post #64

MichaelZuo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought it a bit odd that they picked up steam first in the U.S. for this reason. The economic case is vastly more sensible in Singapore or some other city-state.

> a bit odd that they picked up steam first in the U.S. for this reason My sense is that it was riding a wave of "local" and "farm to table". If you're in a city like LA or NY where there's a lack of space AND local demand for a premium priced product that can be delivered year round AND more awareness/marketability for such products (local + sustainable), the economics are different than versus growing a commodity p…

I’m all for farm to table but both NY and LA don’t need farms within city limits.

All you’re saving by forcing that is a few hours of driving in a truck. If there’s an emissions concern then most farming regions are also good places for renewables like solar and wind. Electric or other carbon neutral vehicles seem like a more reasonable solution. Just a short trip outside of a city can probably get enough land for a large greenhouse if you want higher density farming with existing ag-tech and shorter transport.

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#68

Post by mikeg8 » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:21 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #66

tfourb wrote: post #15

Indoor and especially vertical farming might be worthwhile in some edge cases but all the fancy Startup babble does conveniently ignore that you lose access to thousands of dollars worth of free services provided by nature: irrigation, fertility, pest control, sun light for crying out loud. The idea that more than a fraction of food production can profitably move indoors is laughable and VCs would be much better off…

Cows are usually started outdoors and then finished indoors. There's no reason why farming couldn't follow a similar hybrid approach. That way you could e.g. grow tropical crops in New England, but still not have to pay for the majority of the required resources.

Explain how you create a tropical environment in New England that doesn’t require an incredible amount of resources to mimic the temperature, humidity, soil conditions, required to bear profitable products

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#69

Post by jackmott » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:24 PM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #28

tfourb wrote: post #15

Indoor and especially vertical farming might be worthwhile in some edge cases but all the fancy Startup babble does conveniently ignore that you lose access to thousands of dollars worth of free services provided by nature: irrigation, fertility, pest control, sun light for crying out loud. The idea that more than a fraction of food production can profitably move indoors is laughable and VCs would be much better off…

By this reasoning, why would we need to do anything to grow food? Why not relax and enjoy nature's bounty? If your answer is anything but "we should indeed" then you're saying that a spectrum of technological aids are a good idea. This is one of them. E.g. growing water-intensive herbs in the Middle East based on nature vs inside a water-recirculating vertical farm. If it's not obvious, the answer isn't actually natu…

[dead]

Re: Upward Farms throws in towel ten years after founding vertical-farming business

#70

Post by throwway120385 » Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 2:27 PM UTC

EntrePrescott wrote: post #27

makeitdouble wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they would usually not entertain us and would always claim that they were going to build everything by themselves. I'd assume it's an attempt to have exclusivity (and thus a shot at exponential growth) instead of targeting slow and stable growth ? From your description alone, it feels your business model is more targeted to small business than startups (which is a good thing IMO)

> I'd assume it's an attempt to have exclusivity (and thus a shot at exponential growth) instead of targeting slow and stable growth ? My guess from the context would rather be that they think (rightly or not) that they can do it cheaper themselves or by paying someone else a fixed cost rather than giving out a profit share like the pricing model in the FAQ says: > Our pricing model is based on the principle that we…

A lot of it is also that the tech/VC way of things is to try to build everything yourself, and to assume the mechanics of the problem is easy and doesn't require a lot of domain knowledge. Whereas the software required to orchestrate all of these systems and provide insight is complex and needs a lot of software. I think it's a classic case of misunderstanding how complicated everything is and assuming that because you have been given a bunch of VC money that it's somehow a mandate to build everything yourself. It's what happens most of the time when a "tech" company interacts with the physical world. Like how my Nest thermostat always learns to do the opposite of what I want at any point in time.