You must log in or register to comment.
I wonder how much more energy it uses, and what the efficiency of land is versus a fruit wall model.
It has been years since I last looked into this so things may have changed.
Basically, the lights are LEDs so the power draw is fairly low. Between not using pesticides and having more control over growing conditions, vertical farms get higher yields and are of higher quality.
The problem is water. Most corporate farms just buy the water. I’ve seen some at home or small scale setups that use water from tilapia tanks, which also has the benefit of having fertilizer.
Sourcing graywater is much easier in the big picture than literally duplicating the power of the sun.
The eROI on electric-lit farms is by definition well below 1.
This is pure vibes and I am begging to be corrected, but these vertical farms seem like a techbro grift. They look like they’re super high maintenance and resource intensive and hard to scale. Like how much energy does all that artifical lighting use, the watering solution, the pollination solution. Claims like this just makes my grift-o-meter beep: “pollination of plants has also been engineered to be more efficient than bees.”. And 0 explanation how, why or in what way, it’s just “more efficient than bees”
.“Vertical farms grow crops indoors in stacked layers and provide consistent yield and crop quality but they use a tremendous amount of costly energy for light and air flow,” said Paul Gauthier, Professor of Protected Cropping at the University of Queensland, Australia. “If we create a more dynamic environment that turns lights and sensors on and off during the day in line with the cycles of photosynthesis rather than leaving them on all the time, we could tap into cheaper energy at off peak times and still maximize the advantages of vertical farming.
Why does it need so much artifical stuff are we really that desperate for arable land? If we are I’ve got a way cooler solution and it’s the comms name. And if we aren’t, there are enough other reasons.
“If we are to increase food production by as much as 70% by 2050, we need to look at things differently.
Huh? Why do we need to do that? Just seems like
Futurology 
to me…I’m not very well versed in the vertical farming concept. However I thought it was an idea worth considering to improve climate resiliency. I should read up more studies on the topic.
I guess I just don’t understand what problem this is solving?
Land use and transportation costs/emissions would be the big two. As you can set these up in urban areas and sell the produce to the immediate area.
Land use
like I said if the amount of land is an issue I’ve got a better idea.
emissions
same idea would also help with emissions! Also, electrical transportation, I’m not sure that this is a reasonable way to cut down on emissions caused by transporting produce?
the pollination solution
You’ve heard of clover honey and acacia honey, now try strawberry honey
And I would suspect vertical farming would be viable if they did it in the windows of existing buildings. But that’s just windowsill gardening.
Except there are no bees, it’s something more efficient!
The article doesn’t mention pollination; I assume they’d rent a hive or something. There’s gotta be at least one apiculture hobbyist in Richmond.
Edit: It did, I missed it.
There’s a half-sentence about their solution being “more efficient” than bees
edit: it was very easy to miss
First and foremost: fuck hexbear users and their use of meme pictures in their messages
Second:
are we really that desperate for arable land?
In some places, yes, also we need to find solutions to bring food production closer to population centers to minimize transport
The energy costs will make the product very expensive, but it might work out of season and for restaurants and bakeries.
strawberries
I’d like to see how they’re doing pollination indoors without pollinators.
