NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a very cool article on vertical farms. It is at the modern tech level. I really like it.

http://nymag.com/news/features/30020/index1.html

Sounds like it'd be about 100x as expensive as regular farming.

Sounds like it'd be about 100x as expensive as regular farming.

I dunno. In the long run might be worth it, what with all that renewable energy it uses.

Sounds like it'd be about 100x as expensive as regular farming.

I'm pretty sure it produces a much much smaller yield as well.

Partially balanced by more efficient use of land. And if these are viable in urban areas, it would greatly decrease shipping distance and expense.

Strikes me you could use large boats... they'd have the advantage of 1) large amounts of water just lying around (all you need is some sunlight to evaporate it and something - a greenhouse roof, say - to catch the condensation), and 2) you can move the boat to where the food is needed.

Partially balanced by more efficient use of land. And if these are viable in urban areas, it would greatly decrease shipping distance and expense.

Gotta figure land in the city can run a million an acre, easily. In the country about 3k an acre. You can ship a lot of produce for $997,000

Actually, it's quite a good idea. Current farms require lots of land, large fuel usage for big farm equipment, coats food we consume in toxic pesticides, crops can become damaged from floods/ droughts/ severe weather/ early frost/ and a slew of other issues. Do you not recall the recent tomato shortage? There were also a few other food shortages, brought out by intense hurricanes and strange weather across the US. AND, thanks to the outsourcing of wheat gluten to China, many pet food products are contaminated, killing 16 confirmed pets, and costing millions of dollars lost in sales to companies pulling huge amounts of products off the shelf.

Gotta figure land in the city can run a million an acre, easily. In the country about 3k an acre. You can ship a lot of produce for $997,000

YOu could also build a lot of high-rise housing in the country. :p

Somehow see this being mainly taken up by people growing dope - would make a change from houses with boarded up windows.

Its a very cool concept. As such, they need to create a model and a prototype yet.

But they should start doing it now. It will be very usefull in the future in space exploration.

Ha, this made me laugh. It shouldn't and wouldn't but for Chris Morris' satirical genius. Anyone with access to it, I highly recommend downloading the Brass Eye episode "Science" then reading this article again.

The actual idea seems a bit superfluous to requirements in anything but the very distant future in terms of human lifespans. Aside from anything, intensive farming of crops isn't a problem, considering the land mass:food output ratio presented. Extensive farming of livestock uses much more land for the amount of meat it produces.

I just don't see this sort of system being at all cost effective.
I also highly doubt that burning the waste plant matter would provide nearly enough energy to run this - it would be very expensive.

The article talks about having many levels of plants - where is the light going to come from? Unless these were absurdly narrow and the vertical separation between levels significant, sunlight alone would not be enough. You would need a lot of lights.

Such a building could have a very carbon-dioxide rich atmosphere to boost productivity, but the system could not be sufficiently efficient to make it worth the investment.

It would be a good idea in the future when current farming methods and water management techniques are inadequate to support people. It would also be good on Mars and other extraplanetary colonies, since it would be protected from the lack of atmosphere and extreme temperatures.

Seems like just a space idea. Or maybe if some fancy restaurant wanted to grow exotic plants on spot for show.

For ecological part: the materials going into its construction require more waste and pollution than would be produced by fossil fuels on normal farm.

Pretty cool, seems to me. It generates its own power between pellets, solar and wind, reduces travel from point of production (I made that term up all by myself, unless it exists already and I could have just pretended I knew...) to the consumer, if it takes in waste from outside to process as pellets as well as suggested then it can generate fuel as well as energy. Really the whole thing sounds like win-win-win...but then at concept stage most things do. I'm rooting for it to work out, sounds cool to me.

Though something like this for livestock would reduce land use needs even more, but having a slaughterhouse in the middle of the city would be a hard damn sell for a number of good reasons. I like that it can raise fish as well, though. Neat.

Seems like just a space idea. Or maybe if some fancy restaurant wanted to grow exotic plants on spot for show.

For ecological part: the materials going into its construction require more waste and pollution than would be produced by fossil fuels on normal farm.

Do you have calculations on that, or is that just a wild guess?

It would be a good idea in the future when current farming methods and water management techniques are inadequate to support people. It would also be good on Mars and other extraplanetary colonies, since it would be protected from the lack of atmosphere and extreme temperatures.

Aye, though given Peak Oil on the horizon it might be applicable sooner than we think. In any case it's worth exploring for urban areas and other places that have an inability to grow a decent amount of food in their soil on their own.

If the human population has reached a point where high-rise plantations are necessary, won't we already be living and working in high-rise flats and skyscrapers? Wouldn't that block out the sunlight getting to these buildings? The power systems of that design need to be looked at too, as they seem to be rather optimistic. The project needs some civil engineers to look at it as well as architects and microbiologists.

Aye, though given Peak Oil on the horizon it might be applicable sooner than we think. In any case it's worth exploring for urban areas and other places that have an inability to grow a decent amount of food in their soil on their own.

In which case this might be even more beneficial. It would enable us to relocalize our agriculture and cut down on the amount of fossil fuel and net energy inputs in to food production. We could also use it to produce crops for biofuels, although those would be better integrated with power plants to use the CO2 they produce.

It wouldn't be cheap, but if fossil fuel prices soar it would be a lot more attractive to build out these kinds of facilities to offset the price increases.

Do you have calculations on that, or is that just a wild guess?
An estimate. No one can do calculations as there are no data on these farms but a concept.

Still, considering construction costs, stacking land seems considerably less efficient than just using normal farming.
Where available, of course; I guess such things could make sense for far North.


If the human population has reached a point where high-rise plantations are necessary, won't we already be living and working in high-rise flats and skyscrapers?
Seconded.

In which case this might be even more beneficial. It would enable us to relocalize our agriculture and cut down on the amount of fossil fuel and net energy inputs in to food production. We could also use it to produce crops for biofuels, although those would be better integrated with power plants to use the CO2 they produce.

It wouldn't be cheap, but if fossil fuel prices soar it would be a lot more attractive to build out these kinds of facilities to offset the price increases.

Exactly my point. Of course for the moment it's still in the concept stage, but I think it could probably be pushed forth in a hurry if the situation necessitated it. It's worth a shot, anyway, and it's a definite good shot.

If the human population has reached a point where high-rise plantations are necessary, won't we already be living and working in high-rise flats and skyscrapers?

I don't know, actually. It may be more likely that we do it to better manage water resources or to grow GM crops, so population density might have nothing to do with it.

Exactly my point. Of course for the moment it's still in the concept stage, but I think it could probably be pushed forth in a hurry if the situation necessitated it. It's worth a shot, anyway, and it's a definite good shot.

Oh, absolutely. Our present methods of farming need a serious overhaul to deal with shortfalls in fossil fuel supplies; otherwise, we're going to see some serious inflation in prices that could pose a problem to low-income consumers. Peak oil can't be allowed to threaten food security.

Oh, absolutely. Our present methods of farming need a serious overhaul to deal with shortfalls in fossil fuel supplies; otherwise, we're going to see some serious inflation in prices that could pose a problem to low-income consumers. Peak oil can't be allowed to threaten food security.

Let's not forget that climate change may alter where we have to grow food in addition to dealing with the problem of being able to grow it, thus making these skyfarms even more useful.

I don't know, actually. It may be more likely that we do it to better manage water resources or to grow GM crops, so population density might have nothing to do with it.
Management of water resources shouldn't really see a benefit from this, as any conservation of water loss around the plants and use of the grey water mentioned would be offset by the power consumption required for pumping systems throughout the building. I don't see what you're getting at with the GM crops, if you can tell me what you meant by that I'd like to know.

As for dealing with oil's control over farming, I think that implementing alternative energy sources to power vehicles and heaters, such as electricity being generated from nuclear reactors, is a more suitable approach than increasing the energy requirement of building, maintaining and running the high tech high-rise farms. It still doesn't deal with livestock, either.

I like the concept, I'm just trying to be pragmatic (and, unfortunately, pessimistic) about it. Current farming methods in developed countries feed the population just fine with plenty of space. Possibly bringing developing nations up to speed with our techniques would be a more affordable and attainable method of coping with world increase in populations and their food requirement.

Management of water resources shouldn't really see a benefit from this, as any conservation of water loss around the plants and use of the grey water mentioned would be offset by the power consumption required for pumping systems throughout the building. I don't see what you're getting at with the GM crops, if you can tell me what you meant by that I'd like to know.

What I mean is it would be a good way to test GM crops without risking contamination of non-modified crops. They're grown in here, tested to see what possible effects they might have on other plants, and then released to large-scale production or reengineered to address their shortfalls.

As for dealing with oil's control over farming, I think that implementing alternative energy sources to power vehicles and heaters, such as electricity being generated from nuclear reactors, is a more suitable approach than increasing the energy requirement of building, maintaining and running the high tech high-rise farms. It still doesn't deal with livestock, either.

True. I'd agree with this, especially since large-scale power generation is more efficient. However, if this method could greatly reduce the amount of fossil energy needed to produce food, it would be useful.

I like the concept, I'm just trying to be pragmatic (and, unfortunately, pessimistic) about it. Current farming methods in developed countries feed the population just fine with plenty of space. Possibly bringing developing nations up to speed with our techniques would be a more affordable and attainable method of coping with world increase in populations and their food requirement.

Yeah, it really would be. Modern agriculture is extremely productive and we could feed the entire world, not to mention a significant increase in population over current levels, if we were to increase farm productivity in the developing world to the levels seen in the US or Europe.

How about we just build multilayered hydroponic farms at the edges of cities. Cheaper to build, many of the same features, and not taking up prime real estate in the middle of a city.

The thing about biofuels reminded me of an article I read the other day that said companies were saying that EU targets on biofuels were excessive and would damage the environment. Apparently most oil that would be used would be sourced from palm. Now the problem is that even though they want to source palm oil from non-felled-rainforest sites, this will still push up demand for palm oil, leading to an increase in rainforests being felled to supply land to grow palms on. But anyway, the conclusion of these companies was that biofuels were an ecological diaster waiting to happen.

What I mean is it would be a good way to test GM crops without risking contamination of non-modified crops. They're grown in here, tested to see what possible effects they might have on other plants, and then released to large-scale production or reengineered to address their shortfalls.Ah, OK. I personally wouldn't advocate building these structures for that sole purpose if the same could be achieved in a hydroponics-controlled lab situation, but if they were being built anyway then they'd be fairly suited to that purpose.True. I'd agree with this, especially since large-scale power generation is more efficient. However, if this method could greatly reduce the amount of fossil energy needed to produce food, it would be useful.Oh yeah, definitely. I'm just questioning the concepts so carelessly bandied about in the article. Living with future civil engineers has taught me one thing, and that's ambitious architectural concepts often make huge sacrifices. A nice piece of hyperbole perhaps, but designers rarely take facts and figures fully into account when creating. They leave that to others later in the process.Yeah, it really would be. Modern agriculture is extremely productive and we could feed the entire world, not to mention a significant increase in population over current levels, if we were to increase farm productivity in the developing world to the levels seen in the US or Europe.Yeah, totally. Someone raised the point about changing climate conditions before - well, research into efficient agriculture in the developing world may provide some decent insights into our hypothetical future climate conditions in the currently temperate zones.

But anyway, the conclusion of these companies was that biofuels were an ecological disaster waiting to happen.
That's likely. Human power consumption is too high to sustain this way. Biofuels are but some substitute for oil, nothing more; it's not like they are cleaner or better, just can let to stick with the old technologies even if oil runs out.


The best bet today for power is probably full-cycle nuclear - with reprocessing U238, the supplies are enough for centuries. There are dangers associated, but they can be avoided. The approach I use and sell IC is building full-cycle underground complexes: a system containing a set of different fast and thermal reactors and the reprocessing all in one place. It eliminates transport dangers, allows for high security, and underground system allows for way more reliable containment.
An example of proper structure is a nuclear missile silo [they are quite huge, not just some missile-sized hole in the ground]. As they show, costs of serious safety approach are not all that high compared to the equipment.
Nuclear power is sometimes considered expensive, but that's because nuclear power plants' costs are calculated including fuel storage and decommissioning costs, unlike for others, plus involve massive research expenses. All things considered, it's quite an inexpensive way, second only to burning coal close to the mine. Ecologically, it's clean, unlike fossil fuels, and doesn't take huge land areas like the alternatives. Thermonuclear offers headroom for advancement to near-unlimited supply.

Biofuels are nothing but an interim solution, while actually it would be better to develop energy storage for electric vehicles. Besides saving on emissions, electric vehicles are also much simpler mechanically, which can improve recycling.


Modern agriculture is extremely productive and we could feed the entire world, not to mention a significant increase in population over current levels, if we were to increase farm productivity in the developing world to the levels seen in the US or Europe.
Just US would be enough to do it. The vast majority of available farming land, all throughout the world, is unused. Simply not needed.

Looks like a good idea to me. And, the construction for one might be less than the polluntion generated by farm equiptment on a regular farm (and I know from EXPERIENCE seeing as how my whole community is a giant farm in North Carolina that farm equipment is especially nasty when it comes to pollution). I think that if they gave the farms a try, they might make up for themselves in the long run.

There's just one huge problem with the conventional design of vertical farms and that's the source of power. A regular field takes in a lot of the light that hits it so you'd need something that could provide more power than 1 acre worth of solar power, not the less that the solar cell on top of the tower will provide. The wind spire is also too inefficient and low yeild. It'd have to be really tall to catch enough wind to generate the power needed but if that's approach you took it'd end up beign too heavy (or flimsy). This is where coal comes in. It provides plenty of power and the emissions can be used to boost crop yeilds. By running sea water through the boilers you purify it and reduce strain on aquifers as well as provide salt for seasoning or preserving food. It'd also be easy to make an on-site coal plant produce much more power than the tower(s) consumes, providing cheap excess power to the surrounding populace.

Do not think for a second that these will or could be used for biofuels. Those frankenstein fuels are terrible and pointless.

Not a bad idea for a mars I would think. They will have to grow food on Mars to make it efficient for long term use.

Not a bad idea for a mars I would think. They will have to grow food on Mars to make it efficient for long term use.
'They' would have to up the grav on Mars before you could live on it for too long.

BTW, who is this 'they' you speak of?

sounds interesting

would be cool if it works

'They' would have to up the grav on Mars before you could live on it for too long.

BTW, who is this 'they' you speak of?
I'd imagine it's a 3rd person plural description pertaining to whoever may be venturing to Mars, in the near future, with intent to populate or study its surface over an extended period of time. At a guess...

The gravity would be a bitch to deal with though, I agree there. I like the randomness of the suggestion though, top marks to Marrakech.

Good for Mars. Not really worth the hassle on Earth. Most of the planet's agricultural land is underutilised at the moment anyway.

They' would have to up the grav on Mars before you could live on it for too long.
Not really. Almost 0.4g - that's quite far from space or even Moon.

Not really. Almost 0.4g - that's quite far from space or even Moon.
That's still too low for raising a civilization. After a few years you'd be quite a bit weaker than an normal Terran or Ringer.

So what, if it's enough there? It isn't Master of Orion. And RL isn't soft-fiction: they aren't going to return to Earth and try to live back there.

That's still too low for raising a civilization. After a few years you'd be quite a bit weaker than an normal Terran or Ringer.

I imagine you'd need to enhance anyone who goes there so that their bodies are capable of living in a reduced-gravity environment without suffering loss of physical strength. Presumably artificial muscles would work, especially since some artificial compounds are actually stronger and more durable when manufactured in low-gravity environments compared to on Earth.

Not really happy about it being a possible necessity in the future... but I think it will be... Hydro(sp?) or something like this.

It would be nice if that did become viable, as it would make it easier for importers of food such as Britain to be self sufficient. We could even grow warmer temperature crops that we normally have to import, like coffee. But I am sceptical about these kinds of miracle ideas. Hope it works out, but I'm certainly not optimistic.

I imagine you'd need to enhance anyone who goes there so that their bodies are capable of living in a reduced-gravity environment without suffering loss of physical strength. Presumably artificial muscles would work,
Just why would they need it? Muscles in low-g don't grow weaker just because the g is lower. They only develop less strong because they do less work. If you give some exercise since childhood, people will be as able to do the required labor as ones grown on Earth.

Space crews have problems because they need to return on Earth afterwards. Colonists only need to be adapted to their colony. The idea of keeping humans unchanged on other planets is pretty silly; furthermore, they'll likely undergo genetic modification for better adaptation.

'They' would have to up the grav on Mars before you could live on it for too long.

BTW, who is this 'they' you speak of?

Chinese/Russians basically, that is of course America has some boost of pride and beats them to it.