|
I can believe that indoor farming has certain economic niches for fast growing crops in urban areas far from suitable farmlands. E.g. as a means to supply greens to cities in the winter if international agricultural supply chains are no longer viable. It doesn't seem to ever make sense for grains.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I haven't really done any reading on vertical farms in a few years but everything I read about them made them out as solar-road level PR stunt wastefulness. Has anything changed or is it still a pipe dream that only seems reasonable to city folk who have no idea the scale of actual agriculture? Its more that we have so much flat land that anything that would work in a tower would be better suited on the flat land. If we need to build arcologies or have controlled environments due to severe pollution or something then they'd make sense. So they're a good prop in your dystopian scifi ecunopolis
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I haven't really done any reading on vertical farms in a few years but everything I read about them made them out as solar-road level PR stunt wastefulness. Has anything changed or is it still a pipe dream that only seems reasonable to city folk who have no idea the scale of actual agriculture? It'll change if someone does a nuclear winter and renders vast swathes of farmland nonviable.  But seriously at most they're going to be useful for something like growing small amounts of specialty crops in places they can't normally grow. And for that you're basically just going to be building greenhouses on/in other buildings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Yeah or like a moon base could probably make really good use of vertical farming but have you ever seen Kansas lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah or like a moon base could probably make really good use of vertical farming Why? It's not like land is the expensive part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
all of the "lol the economics of it are terrible land is cheap" thinking continue to fall pray to the mistake that OUR SYSTEM PRICES WRONG the current system of providing for fresh leafy greens and produce for most of america (lol what little of it we eat) is to drive it via diesel powered truck from California to wherever you are. still that really only argues for local greenhouses not vertical farms
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I haven't really done any reading on vertical farms in a few years but everything I read about them made them out as solar-road level PR stunt wastefulness. Has anything changed or is it still a pipe dream that only seems reasonable to city folk who have no idea the scale of actual agriculture? StabbinHobo posted:all of the "lol the economics of it are terrible land is cheap" thinking continue to fall pray to the mistake that OUR SYSTEM PRICES WRONG
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I haven't really done any reading on vertical farms in a few years but everything I read about them made them out as solar-road level PR stunt wastefulness. Has anything changed or is it still a pipe dream that only seems reasonable to city folk who have no idea the scale of actual agriculture? I think I'd start to see them become much more cost-efficient to build and maintain in a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:all of the "lol the economics of it are terrible land is cheap" thinking continue to fall pray to the mistake that OUR SYSTEM PRICES WRONG If it were economical for local greenhouses to do it, they would. But there are economies of scale and specialization at work. Yeah, there are price distortions based on things like California farmers being free to pump as much groundwater as they want so they don't have to price water as an input, but not every place can economically produce every kind of food, and different crops grow better in different regions. Those places more suited to growing, say, mushrooms, are going to grow the poo poo out of mushrooms and truck them further for delivery at a cheaper price than those places could grow their own mushrooms. Can you duplicate those local conditions artificially in a greenhouse if you wanted to? Sure. But it would cost more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:If it were economical for local greenhouses to do it, they would. But there are economies of scale and specialization at work. Yeah, there are price distortions based on things like California farmers being free to pump as much groundwater as they want so they don't have to price water as an input, but not every place can economically produce every kind of food, and different crops grow better in different regions. Those places more suited to growing, say, mushrooms, are going to grow the poo poo out of mushrooms and truck them further for delivery at a cheaper price than those places could grow their own mushrooms. lol, keep going dude you're so close. think about that water subsidy and what it means. then zoom out and think about the diesel it takes to get from A to B, now put whatever price you think belongs on carbon (are you a $20t or a $200t guy?) now hows your economic production look
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:They're currently at the level of usefulness solar energy was in 2000. Not even close to true dude. Grouchio posted:Dubai Airlines now gets all of it's greens from a brand new one, as does Las Vegas. It's absolutely false to say Las Vegas gets all its greens from nerdfarms. Can't say whether the airline gets all its small amount of fresh greens from a nerdfarm (though I doubt it, as airlines tend to stock planes from local suppliers each flight rather than waste fuel flying extra cabbage halfway around the world before using it).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:lol, keep going dude you're so close. think about that water subsidy and what it means. then zoom out and think about the diesel it takes to get from A to B, now put whatever price you think belongs on carbon (are you a $20t or a $200t guy?) The diesel it takes to get food to the cities is a really tiny amount of the cost that it takes to feed people in cities. Wave a wand and eliminate it entirely, it still doesn't make vertical farming economical. Heck, "think about that water subsidy and what it means," and then you're going to what, replace it with crops grown indoors that need all their water as an input? And all the light? And the heat? Farms outdoors in specialized areas get all that poo poo for free. You think you're going to build vertical farms in cities at all latitudes and be competitive with shipping food in from those areas? https://www.monbiot.com/2010/08/16/towering-lunacy/ quote:They show that the light required to grow the 500 grammes of wheat that a loaf of bread contains would cost, at current prices, £9.82. (The current farm gate price for half a kilo of wheat is 6p(12).) That’s just lighting: no inputs, interest, rents, rates, or labour. Somehow this minor consideration – that plants need light to grow and that they aren’t going to get it except on the top storey – has been overlooked by the scheme’s supporters. I won’t bother to explain the environmental impacts. https://theconversation.com/food-security-vertical-farming-sounds-fantastic-until-you-consider-its-energy-use-102657 quote:The energy demand associated with vertical farming, however, is much higher than other methods of food production. For example, lettuces grown in traditionally heated greenhouses in the UK need an estimated 250kWh of energy a year for every square metre of growing area. In comparison, lettuces grown in a purpose built vertical farm need an estimated 3,500kWh a year for each square metre of growing area. Notably, 98% of this energy use is due to artificial lighting and climate control. But, oh, (handwaves), our pricing is wrong. It's a boutique application. It can keep restaurants supplied with chervil and frisee. It's not how you're going to feed people. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:The diesel it takes to get food to the cities is a really tiny amount of the cost that it takes to feed people in cities. a.) yes no poo poo sherlock thats the problem with climate change diesel is priced wrong, thats the whole point here b.) we're talking about greens/vegitables not "feeding people". if you feed people nothing but grains you're going to get a massive diabetes and heart disease crisis approximately one generation later. (oops) quote:Heck, "think about that water subsidy and what it means," and then you're going to what, replace it with crops grown indoors that need all their water as an input? systems such as aerofarm's use 95% less water: https://aerofarms.com/technology/
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Why? It's not like land is the expensive part. It is in that case, since you need to create an enclosure with earth's atmospheric conditions and you need to ship in any soil anyway. The cost of the enclosure will grow with volume, and it needs to be at least human height, so 2d farming would be more expensive than 3d farming
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Vertical farms are a techy scifi dream that make very little sense in reality outside of super niche situations. First, you simply have to compare them to greenhouses - why would you grow plants in a conventional building when you can grow them in a greenhouse and get some (or all) of the required heat and light for free, from the sun? It only makes sense if we run out of land, which uh, we won't, ever. Second, the environmental impact will never ever make sense while the grid is supplied by fossil fuels. Vertical farms take a lot of power. Conventional outdoor farms are actually remarkably efficient, it takes no energy input to grow(besides the sun) , and only a small amount to plant/fertilize/harvest etc. If you go to indoor farms you are dramatically increasing the power requirements, which, on the US grid equals emissions. Yeah, you won't have to ship it as far, but that's peanuts compared to production. Lastly, basic economics. Yeah, inputs into farms are not priced as they should be, I doubt anyone in this thread will disagree - but that doesn't mean that vertical farms are the solution. Vertical farms only make sense where you're space constrained, so, in a city. Well, in a city everything costs way more. Land, construction, water, power, labor, you name it. Why would you do that in the city, instead of the outskirts where your costs will be dramatically lower, where the only downside is that you have to drive an hour? If you want out of season crops that don't need to be shipped across the ocean (or country) you make greenhouses outside of cities and put some grow lights and heaters in them. It's way, way more efficient than vertical farms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:a.) yes no poo poo sherlock thats the problem with climate change diesel is priced wrong, thats the whole point here Jesus you’re dense. Posit whatever price per kilogram of CO2 you feel is necessary to get the transport price of conventionally-grown food up to where you think vertical farming makes sense. quote:In a 2008 study on crop product flown into New York, the authors found that transporting lettuce across the US produced 0.70 kg of CO2 per kg. Yet, according to Albright’s calculations, 100% artificially lit systems would produce about 3.95kg of CO2 per kg lettuce for the lighting – more than five times greater. StabbinHobo posted:b.) we're talking about greens/vegitables not "feeding people". if you feed people nothing but grains you're going to get a massive diabetes and heart disease crisis approximately one generation later. If you try to feed people on nothing but greens/vegetables with no grains then you certain do obviate that problem because everyone starves to death in the meantime. quote:systems such as aerofarm's use 95% less water: https://aerofarms.com/technology/ According to, you know, the people who are trying to sell it. Do you trust everything that ADM and Cargill tell you, too? Phanatic fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It is in that case, since you need to create an enclosure with earth's atmospheric conditions and you need to ship in any soil anyway. The cost of the enclosure will grow with volume, and it needs to be at least human height, so 2d farming would be more expensive than 3d farming ... The amount of volume necessary, be it 2d or 3d, scales with desired yield. With 2d farming, you need a bit more extra volume for people to walk around. With 3d farming, you need additional machinery to move people from level to level. And a lot more artificial light. It’s questionable that the latter would be cheaper. But it’s not really any less plausible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
This has got me thinking of the greenhouses of Almeria, Spain: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2303943/Britains-vegetable-garden-The-sea-Spanish-greenhouses-large-Isle-Wight-food-eat-grown.html Not sure what my point is, but it's fascinating/hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
I'm kinda laughing at the assertion that city water is less "subsidized" than water to some random farm in Ohio, or that farming in the city nerdfarm design somehow won't massively rely on carbon loaded transport.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:... I don't mean "build one giant tower", I mean "use all 7-8 feet of the enclosure height that you were going to need to have anyway instead of only planting things in a grid at ground level". Vertical farming includes the former Your ellipses seem like an attempt at condescension but there's no need for that QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
Goons tend to be wrong about everything,so I'm gonna think that vertical farms are cool as poo poo and will totally work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:... It's the Moon, there's no light for two weeks and never-ending sunshine for another two. More horizontal area covered with windows also means a higher risk of a critical leak because of micrometeorites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
And you know, the severe radiation. Not sure what it would do to plants, but a big glass enclosure filled with earth-normal atmosphere would still require you walking around in full gear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Posit whatever price per kilogram of CO2 you feel is necessary to get the transport price of conventionally-grown food up to where you think vertical farming makes sense. https://www.dreamgreens.com/products/ getting 2 day old greens from newark instead of 7 day old greens from california *triples* the time I can keep it in my fridge, which takes it from "eat within a day or two of grocery shopping" to "eat anytime this week". fundamentally transforms the logistics/shelf-stocking inventory math. quote:If you try to feed people on nothing but greens/vegetables with no grains then you certain do obviate that problem because everyone starves to death in the meantime. quote:According to, you know, the people who are trying to sell it. Do you trust everything that ADM and Cargill tell you, too?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 15:01
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:vertical farming *already* makes sense for leafy greens. I know this because I eat some literally every week. Ordinary lettuce trucked in: $1/lb. Dreamgreens spring mix: $4/4.5 ounces. So for about a dozen calories of food, you're paying literally 1400% more than just buying an ordinary head of lettuce, while generating vastly more carbon emissions than it would take to truck those plants in from somewhere that can grow them without paying for light. This, to you, "makes sense." Like I said: this is a technology that can provide well-off urban dwellers with chervil and frisee. It's a boutique product for Whole Foods and restaurants, not a serious food supply, and you've just totally confirmed that point. quote:getting 2 day old greens from newark instead of 7 day old greens from california *triples* the time I can keep it in my fridge, which takes it from "eat within a day or two of grocery shopping" to "eat anytime this week". Ah. "I'm willing to gently caress the planet harder and pay a huge price premium so that I can have the convenience of...not planning my consumption of almost totally non-nutritive food in advance." If your lettuce wilts, you could throw it out, take another trip to the store, burning more gas, to buy lettuce trucked in from Arizona, and *still* have less of an environmental impact than growing lettuce with LEDs in fuckin' Newark. quote:fundamentally transforms the logistics/shelf-stocking inventory math. Surprise, surprise, packaging food makes it last longer. It also takes more energy. How much CO2 was emitted and how much oil was consumed generating those plastic packs your special baby spring mix comes in? quote:yes its a conspiracy to make your posting look dumb, we are all working together to make you *appear* stupid. Says the guy who's been convinced by save-the-planet marketing that his spending 14 times as much on lettuce as he needs to is an environmental benefit. Edit: I'm also really amused by the fact that the guy who said that "OUR SYSTEM PRICES WRONG" thinks it "makes sense" for a city and state that are both in heavy debt already to hand Aerofarms $9 million in tax credits and grants. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/realestate/commercial/in-newark-a-vertical-indoor-farm-helps-anchor-an-areas-revival.html?_r=0 Have any vertical farms shown themselves to be profitable yet? Even one? Because as recently as 2015 that wasn't the case: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/vertical-farm-industry_n_6818402.html Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Oct 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:That’s a neat tool, thanks for posting. Doesn’t take a very high carbon tax to make PV and wind the price winner in 90% of the country Also assuming that the final overnight costs of nuclear are ~double Olkiluoto -3, which is the poster child for "everything done hosed up" of nuclear reactor construction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
if you think a head of lettuce and what I linked to are dietarily the same thing, and should be compared on a cost per calorie basis, i'm going go to ahead and bet you are somewhere between obese and morbidly obese and should not be giving anyone your opinions on food supply chains.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:if you think a head of lettuce and what I linked to are dietarily the same thing, and should be compared on a cost per calorie basis, i'm going go to ahead and bet you are somewhere between obese and morbidly obese and should not be giving anyone your opinions on food supply chains. Are you going to address the pretty salient points he made about the costings?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So for about a dozen calories of food [...] almost totally non-nutritive food [...] I have no opinion on the vertical farms thing but the idea that some food's value should be judged solely or mainly by its energy content is ... "curious" to say the least. I sure hope you're not consuming anything besides refined wheat flour and distilled water. StabbinHobo posted:if you think a head of lettuce and what I linked to are dietarily the same thing [...] I think the quality of food and whether it's been grown in a vertical or a horizontal farm are orthogonal concerns. I.e., vertical farm food can be low quality and lacking nutrients, and horizontal farm food can be high quality and high in nutrient content. Is there any necessary, causal link between vertical farm food and high quality?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Discussion of the viability of an entire farming method should be focused on the need of feeding a population. As in, getting millions of people enough calories to survive in a cost-effective manner. Having fresher boutique microgreens in New Jersey is so inconsequential that this is not the thread for it. Edit: I say this as someone in Texas who gets boutique microgreens from my local hipster farmers market frequently. Vertical farming may be great for that, go hog wild!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:if you think a head of lettuce and what I linked to are dietarily the same thing, and should be compared on a cost per calorie basis, i'm going go to ahead and bet you are somewhere between obese and morbidly obese and should not be giving anyone your opinions on food supply chains. You linked to spring greens. Which are like 80% various forms of lettuce. Lettuce per 100g: 15 calories No fat No cholesterol 194mg K 1g carbs 1.4g protein Shitloads of vitamin A, decent vitamin C, calcium, iron, B6, and magnesium Oh, yeah, you also linked to kale. Which is admittedly extremely healthy to eat. Kale, 100g: 49 calories 1g fat 491mg K 6g carbs 2.9g protein Shitloads of vitamin A and C, decent calcium, iron, B6, and magnesium Certainly better then lettuce. But again, at my local market fresh green kale costs $1.79 for a bunch that's about 8 ounces, which is again way cheaper than $4 for 4.5 ounces. But yeah, now you're only paying 400% what the regular stuff costs. If I wanted to buy collards, which are also healthy as gently caress, a 4.5 ounce quantity would cost me 50 whole cents. The Acme even has baby arugula, fancy-rear end organic baby arugula packed in a plastic shell container, for $5/lb, so even *that* is a shitload cheaper than what Newark-based heavily-subsized aeroponics can produce. Hell, *meat* doesn't cost as much as that, and we had to grow vegetables to feed to the meat. I'm happy that you're sufficiently well-off that absurdly overpaying for leafy greens makes sense to you, even though it's demonstrably worse economically and environmentally, but if this is your idea of wisely-spent food dollars:  you should stop pretending that what you're talking about is a good idea. CombatInformatiker posted:I have no opinion on the vertical farms thing but the idea that some food's value should be judged solely or mainly by its energy content is ... "curious" to say the least. I sure hope you're not consuming anything besides refined wheat flour and distilled water. Well, right now I have a pot of calo verde cooking, so I do, but we're talking about feeding people, not providing niche demands for chives. For people to survive, of course micronutrients are necessary but all the calcium and vitamin A your body can tolerate won't keep you alive if you have insufficient calorie intake. The energy content of food is of almost supreme importance when determining the food demand of a population and whether you can get them enough food to keep them alive. Populations don't live on lettuce and kale and mesclun, even though those things are tasty and healthy. In the context of "can vertical farming feed meaningful segments of the population," energy content is far more significant than micronutrients.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:if you think a head of lettuce and what I linked to are dietarily the same thing, and should be compared on a cost per calorie basis, i'm going go to ahead and bet you are somewhere between obese and morbidly obese and should not be giving anyone your opinions on food supply chains. Wait, is "vertically grown" the new "organic"? Mistaken for being healthier and better for the environment by the gullible?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:In the context of "can vertical farming feed meaningful segments of the population," energy content is far more significant than micronutrients. I think you're conflating A := "can vertical farming supply a meaningful segment of the population with micronutrients?" with B := "can vertical farming supply a meaningful segment of the population with macronutrients?". I think that very few people argue for vertically growing grains (or growing them indoors for that matter), and you could have A without having B. Whether A makes sense is an open question, but lettuce profits much more from the supposed advantages of vertical farms than wheat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
Are there electrical power generation cycles using cabbage now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
Aeroppnics would work better with plants designed for that environment. Like not living/dying on an annual cycle but just continually growing new crops or absorbing nutrients faster. In the meantime there's the constraint of plants designed to grow in an environment with limits shoehorned into an expensive environment with no limits. Could be useful when we get a better.handle on genetics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:I think you're conflating A := "can vertical farming supply a meaningful segment of the population with micronutrients?" with B := "can vertical farming supply a meaningful segment of the population with macronutrients?". I think that very few people argue for vertically growing grains (or growing them indoors for that matter), and you could have A without having B. Whether A makes sense is an open question, but lettuce profits much more from the supposed advantages of vertical farms than wheat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:I think you're conflating A := "can vertical farming supply a meaningful segment of the population with micronutrients?" with B := "can vertical farming supply a meaningful segment of the population with macronutrients?". I think that very few people argue for vertically growing grains (or growing them indoors for that matter), and you could have A without having B. Whether A makes sense is an open question, but lettuce profits much more from the supposed advantages of vertical farms than wheat. This was this original question: Baronjutter posted:I haven't really done any reading on vertical farms in a few years but everything I read about them made them out as solar-road level PR stunt wastefulness. Has anything changed or is it still a pipe dream that only seems reasonable to city folk who have no idea the scale of actual agriculture? An inability to produce *any* food that doesn't cost multiple times what the same food produced by conventional farming can manage, *and* requiring significantly higher energy inputs as well (which is really two different ways of saying the same thing), puts it squarely in the realm of "solar-road level PR stunt wastefulness" (or, more charitably, slick businessmen taking advantage of the well-meaning but ignorant), regardless of what nutrients we're talking about. fishmech posted:We don't need special micronutrient crops in the first place though. So if the tech is only useful for that sort of thing, the tech isn't useful. Also yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:We don't need special micronutrient crops in the first place though. So if the tech is only useful for that sort of thing, the tech isn't useful. "Special micronutrient crops"...? I'm talking about vegetables. And yes, we need them – or do you think those tomatos are only there for decoration?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
This conversation will never be resolved until people start posting life-cycle assessments and then the conversation will just switch to debating which part of the LCA can be improved in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:57 |
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:"Special micronutrient crops"...? I'm talking about vegetables. And yes, we need them – or do you think those tomatos are only there for decoration? This might blow your mind, but tomatoes are full of macronutrients. Also grain is full of micronutrients. That's why the "durr but the nerdfarm can get us micronutrients" stuff is a lovely argument for nerdfarms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:56
|
|