Vertical Farming

POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Thursday, June 21, 2007 09:06
VIEWED: 3487
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

KHYRON

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 7:03 PM

What do y'all think of this?

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 7:10 PM

Incredibly resource-intensive. Given that we run this place for profit, I can't imagine that anyone would build VFs no matter how much they may be needed.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Incredibly resource-intensive.

How do you figure?

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:02 PM

A) The capital outlay for the structure, pumps, etc. The structure has to be very strong because it's mostly windows, so that eliminates cheap concrete structures and requires steel for the suports and "floors" of each level. The "floors" will need to be resistant to corrosion from humic acids.... possibly we're talking stainless steel The windows SHOULD be able to pass broad-spectrum light because chlorophyll absorbs partially in the UV. Pumps will be needed to carry the water to the tops of the tower. YOU MAY need shades to control the temperature.

B) Operating costs: pumps, ventilation*, temperature control. (*Plants do not do THAT well in high-CO2 atmospheres.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

KHYRON

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 8:30 PM

A) Have you seen what skyscrapers, even supertalls, are made out of these days? Concrete and glass cladding ( http://www.skyscrapercity.com/). If you look at the VF website, the estimated building cost is around $83.7 million, which is very little compared to the cost of most skyscrapers that are currently being built.

B) The website addresses those points.

Even if your points were decent, which I don't think they are, do you think something like this would be more resource-intensive than conventional modern agriculture?

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, June 19, 2007 11:35 PM

Not viable, believe me, it wouldn't work, but it would take an engineer to give you a detailed explaination.

-F

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 12:21 AM

"do you think something like this would be more resource-intensive than conventional modern agriculture?"

The only people I know of who make money on this kind of resource intensive farming are pot-growers.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KHYRON

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:03 AM

Have any of you even read what's written on the website!?

Here we have a seemingly good, eco-friendly idea that's being dismissed out of hand by the so-called environmentalists on this board, without valid explanation or reason.

Fremd, there's no question that some minor aspects will present engineering challenges, but I'm curious to know what specifically you were referring to, and why this would make the project unviable.

Rue, the point is that it's less resource-intensive. But the fact that the only people you know who make money from "this kind of" farming are pot-growers tells us a lot about what kind of acquaintances you have and how limited your knowledge on the subject is.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

RUE

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:49 AM

Khyron - I didn't say I KNEW these people, I said I knew ABOUT them. And you immediately jumped to an (ill-aimed) insult. Says something about you in a lot of ways, not the least of which is your inability to read with understanding.

http://www.wolvertonenvironmental.com/
Wolverton (NASA researcher studied creating space-bound natural air and water purification systems) wrote several books - "how to grow fresh air" and "growing fresh water" both of which I've read. They are not directed toward intensive crop production but they do highlight the extent one has to go to to create these type of intensive systems.

I looked at various parts of the site and read a lot of the papers, ALL of which are extremely short on details.

They seem very hyped on the concept of greenhouses in general. They CLAIM that a multi-story greenhouse will have all the benefits - multiplied. What they don't seem to know is that, in real life, greenhouses use a LOT of pesticide and fertilizer. That's b/c they are always moist (an invitation to fungus and insects), and b/c as a tightly-spaced monoculture they are vulnerable to catastrophic infestations. And since growers are looking to make a profit they can't just blow-off a growing season OR a structure to blight. Hence, fertilizers and pesticides. As a food supply, a tightly spaced monoculture is a food disaster waiting to happen should an insect/ fungus/ bacteria come along.

There are other problems such a light penetration to the interior (indeed, every drawing with any detail showed plants growing on the outermost edge only, not in the interior).

While this MAY be feasible it probably won't be profitable for several reasons - the main one being the cost of 'utility rich" and urban land. Paying off the mortgage in tomatoes and leeks would take a long, long time.

Lastly, I'm not sure we know what needs to be in the soil and thus the plants for our own health, and what needs to be kept out as well. (hormones from sewage, anyone?)

I'd like to think humanity can come up with answers, but in a world that I think will be shorter and shorter of resources, I can't imagine most places being able to ante-up for start-up and on-going resource demands.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KHYRON

Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:06 AM

Thanks for the response, Rue, that was the sort of informed response I was hoping to get and was disappointed with the out-of-hand dismissals of the idea that were being posted. I'll respond to your objections in a bit more detail later.

PS: I'm sorry I missed the "of" in your first post. I was annoyed by the gist of your post and I didn't bother reading it in detail, that's why I missed that preposition. But it doesn't change the fact that lots of other people are using greenhouses to profitably produce agricultural produce (the Southern coast of Spain is full of them). This idea would effectively just stack greenhouses on top of each other.

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE