Skyscrapers for plants: maybe farm/forest arcologies should be things
August 23, 2020 5:43 AM Subscribe
Wheat yield potential in controlled-environment vertical farms - "Here we show that wheat grown on a single hectare of land in a 10-layer indoor vertical facility could produce ... 220 to 600 times the current world average annual wheat yield of 3.2 t/ha." (via)
@ramez: "This is massive. I've been a skeptic of vertical farming, as it's mostly used for niche produce. But if this is true & costs can be reduced, the potential to feed more people on a dramatically less land is immense."
@noahpinion: "Vertical farming is my favorite solarpunk invention. Imagine humanity using less and less of the land, allowing it to revert to nature as we stack our farms to the sky. All powered by solar energy, of course."
Coronavirus crisis fuels interest in vertical farming - "Crops grown in 9m tall towers could point the way to the future of food production."
Can vertical farming feed cities of the future? - "By 2050 it's estimated there'll be over 6.5 billion people living in urban spaces, and vertical farming could play a growing role in feeding them. The farms use far less space, water, and transport than traditional methods of farming, although their power consumption is a constant challenge. Persis Love travels to Germany and the UK to explore the sector's developing technologies and business models."
Jacque Fresco – Venus Project and Technologies That Will Change the World - "If you have not heard of the Venus Project yet, it is a model of a peaceful, sustainable civilization of the future in which technology and science are used to reconstruct our social system to create a high standard of living for everyone. The key points of the program of the project are resource-based economy, general automation, and the introduction of high technologies into all spheres to improve each person's life and the scientific approach to solving each particular problem. So what is wrong with that?"[1,2]
Sesame Street: Cookie Monster's Foodie Truck- Mushrooms - "Cookie Monster and Gonger make mushroom quiche but ran out of mushrooms."
@ramez: "This is massive. I've been a skeptic of vertical farming, as it's mostly used for niche produce. But if this is true & costs can be reduced, the potential to feed more people on a dramatically less land is immense."
@noahpinion: "Vertical farming is my favorite solarpunk invention. Imagine humanity using less and less of the land, allowing it to revert to nature as we stack our farms to the sky. All powered by solar energy, of course."
Coronavirus crisis fuels interest in vertical farming - "Crops grown in 9m tall towers could point the way to the future of food production."
David Farquhar, chief executive of technology developer Intelligent Growth Solutions, says the pandemic has prompted a spike in interest in ‘vertical farms’, where batches of crops can be individually watered, fed and lit using LED lights, allowing them to be grown year-round with minimal labour near their markets, regardless of local soil or weather conditions.How to feed 10bn people - "By 2050 the global demand for food will rise by 60 per cent. Wageningen University & Research is looking into new agricultural solutions, including vertical farming and robots to help with farm labour, as well as ways of protecting staple crops."
At the company’s demonstration farm in Invergowrie near the Scottish city of Dundee, trays of produce stacked in 9 metre-tall towers are managed remotely from seeding to packaging. Humans only need to enter the towers for occasional maintenance. “You can run it entirely on robotics . . . You probably need to go in once every six months,” Mr Farquhar said.
[...]
At the IGS facility in Invergowrie, each tray of produce has its own microclimate, with temperature differences of up to 6C between the trays immediately above or below. The growing tower is accessed through an air lock and plastic curtain barrier, removing the need for chemicals to control pests.
Despite the advantages, many vertical farm start-ups have struggled with the high initial investment for building the facilities as well as running costs that include electricity for lighting and ventilation. The sector has been littered with bankruptcies as companies struggling to remain competitive on price have run out of cash.
Niccolo Manzoni of Five Seasons Ventures, a Paris-based agritech venture capital firm, said locally-grown fruit and vegetables appealed to consumers. He added that producers would also welcome technology that could work in regions such as parts of the Middle East, where conventional farming was impossible, or areas in countries such as China that suffer from serious soil contamination.
Nevertheless, Mr Manzoni said the investment case for vertical farms suffered by comparison with open field production. “In an open field, you have the sun for free. In a vertical farm, the electricity bill is very high,” he said. “It only makes sense to operate a [vertical] farm where electricity is dirt cheap or a place where energy is being heavily subsidised.”
But Graeme Warren, chief executive of Aberdeenshire-based Vertegrow, said the company expected the four-tower facility that will be built for it by IGS this year to quickly start paying for itself.
Can vertical farming feed cities of the future? - "By 2050 it's estimated there'll be over 6.5 billion people living in urban spaces, and vertical farming could play a growing role in feeding them. The farms use far less space, water, and transport than traditional methods of farming, although their power consumption is a constant challenge. Persis Love travels to Germany and the UK to explore the sector's developing technologies and business models."
Jacque Fresco – Venus Project and Technologies That Will Change the World - "If you have not heard of the Venus Project yet, it is a model of a peaceful, sustainable civilization of the future in which technology and science are used to reconstruct our social system to create a high standard of living for everyone. The key points of the program of the project are resource-based economy, general automation, and the introduction of high technologies into all spheres to improve each person's life and the scientific approach to solving each particular problem. So what is wrong with that?"[1,2]
Sesame Street: Cookie Monster's Foodie Truck- Mushrooms - "Cookie Monster and Gonger make mushroom quiche but ran out of mushrooms."
Ah, Soleri Arcology, how long have we waited?
posted by zengargoyle at 6:28 AM on August 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by zengargoyle at 6:28 AM on August 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
"Vertical farming is my favorite solarpunk invention. Imagine humanity using less and less of the land, allowing it to revert to nature as we stack our farms to the sky. All powered by solar energy, of course."
Umm... but... umm... with solar panel efficiency of ~25% and LED efficiency of 50%, plus transmission losses, you'd have to use 8 or 10 times the land area for solar panels that you would've if you'd just planted the wheat outside. Or am I missing something?
posted by clawsoon at 6:39 AM on August 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
Umm... but... umm... with solar panel efficiency of ~25% and LED efficiency of 50%, plus transmission losses, you'd have to use 8 or 10 times the land area for solar panels that you would've if you'd just planted the wheat outside. Or am I missing something?
posted by clawsoon at 6:39 AM on August 23, 2020 [17 favorites]
Well, the key line in the main link for me was "Under specific circumstances, and if the energy cost and profitability issues can be resolved, indoor vertical wheat farming might be attractive"
posted by pipeski at 6:46 AM on August 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by pipeski at 6:46 AM on August 23, 2020 [7 favorites]
Adds this into my file labeled "ecologically designed cities + rewilding are better for the environment than small towns and farms"
posted by FirstMateKate at 6:49 AM on August 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by FirstMateKate at 6:49 AM on August 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
The solar area is actually a factor of 2-3 worse than that because they run the lights 24 hours at full blast. The major plus I can come up with is water efficiency and placement where solar but not water is possible, eg Saudi Arabia. That's why we have trade though...
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:51 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:51 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
a robot made out of meat: The major plus I can come up with is water efficiency and placement where solar but not water is possible, eg Saudi Arabia.
And Saudi Arabia already shot the water resources that it did have by becoming the world's sixth-largest exporter of wheat in the '80s.
posted by clawsoon at 7:05 AM on August 23, 2020
And Saudi Arabia already shot the water resources that it did have by becoming the world's sixth-largest exporter of wheat in the '80s.
posted by clawsoon at 7:05 AM on August 23, 2020
The above-the-fold linked paper is not hopeful about the prospects for success of its own idea. It offered as a best case the food price spikes of 2008 and 2010:
posted by clawsoon at 7:17 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
The commodity price for wheat has varied in the past and increased temporally in 2008 and again in 2010 by threefold to fourfold due to global food supply issues (2). Such crises may become more frequent or consequential if climate change reduces future yields in the field (33). Lower costs and higher returns could conceivably reduce the cost:return ratio from 46:1 today to ∼6:1 in the future (Fig. 3B), but this still would not be commercially viable.So when people are rioting because food prices are 3-4 times higher than they are now, they still project that they'll burn through money at a 6:1 ratio.
posted by clawsoon at 7:17 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
a robot made out of meat: The solar area is actually a factor of 2-3 worse than that because they run the lights 24 hours at full blast.
If I'm doing my math correctly, that brings us to 65 million square kilometers of solar panels needed, or an area larger than the entire Eurasian landmass.
Math: 215 million hectares of current wheat production * 10 times the area needed because of solar panel and LED efficiency losses * 3 times the area needed for 24-hour-per-day electricity = 64.5 million square kilometers
posted by clawsoon at 7:28 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
If I'm doing my math correctly, that brings us to 65 million square kilometers of solar panels needed, or an area larger than the entire Eurasian landmass.
Math: 215 million hectares of current wheat production * 10 times the area needed because of solar panel and LED efficiency losses * 3 times the area needed for 24-hour-per-day electricity = 64.5 million square kilometers
posted by clawsoon at 7:28 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Umm... but... umm... with solar panel efficiency of ~25% and LED efficiency of 50%
OTOH I'd guess that any hardcore commercial implementation wouldn't be using white light but instead just blasting the shit out of the maximum-absorption blue light. So 1/8 of the energy, but all at the 90% absorption peak.
The solar panels also don't need to be right there. Glancing, one estimate is that the US has north of 16000 km2 of residential roofs before we even start placing generation fields. And we could start placing solar generation fields over parking lots and other dead lands if we weren't so stupid.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:30 AM on August 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
OTOH I'd guess that any hardcore commercial implementation wouldn't be using white light but instead just blasting the shit out of the maximum-absorption blue light. So 1/8 of the energy, but all at the 90% absorption peak.
The solar panels also don't need to be right there. Glancing, one estimate is that the US has north of 16000 km2 of residential roofs before we even start placing generation fields. And we could start placing solar generation fields over parking lots and other dead lands if we weren't so stupid.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:30 AM on August 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
I remember as a kid there were tons of thinkpieces about how solar would never ever be viable because we’d never solve the battery storage problem. And then we did. So dismissing this out of hand seems short-sighted. It’s a proof of concept, they’re always expensive.
IMO though, a better use case of this technology would be delicate fruits and vegetables that are normally shipped across the planet, rather than grains.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:37 AM on August 23, 2020 [19 favorites]
IMO though, a better use case of this technology would be delicate fruits and vegetables that are normally shipped across the planet, rather than grains.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:37 AM on August 23, 2020 [19 favorites]
Another use case is a crop which has a natural pest, or valuable crops which cannot be grown naturally very well any longer...think coffee, where climate change is laying waste to areas where it can be grown. Or crops, like cocoa, which are often tended by what amount to slaves.
posted by maxwelton at 8:42 AM on August 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by maxwelton at 8:42 AM on August 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
Glancing, one estimate is that the US has north of 16000 km2 of residential roofs before we even start placing generation fields. And we could start placing solar generation fields over parking lots and other dead lands if we weren't so stupid.
Agriculture and utility-scale solar don't need to be in competition. They actually work well together on the same land. Plants under solar panels are remarkably more water efficient, which has obvious implications for farming in the American Southwest. For another example, consider the use of solar panel structures as supports for berry plants, where the panels can also help with sheltering against damaging weather. Or consider honey farming around solar. Or growing tomatoes and peppers around solar.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:44 AM on August 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
Agriculture and utility-scale solar don't need to be in competition. They actually work well together on the same land. Plants under solar panels are remarkably more water efficient, which has obvious implications for farming in the American Southwest. For another example, consider the use of solar panel structures as supports for berry plants, where the panels can also help with sheltering against damaging weather. Or consider honey farming around solar. Or growing tomatoes and peppers around solar.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:44 AM on August 23, 2020 [14 favorites]
energy prices would need to drop dramatically for this to be even remotely viable
My brother bought a trout farm facility, that was a bargain because it was a bankrupt business. They had built vertical trout towers, and had raised a huge amount of investment capital. But it turned out that the electrical power for the pumps ate up all the potential profits. In the case of trout, a power outage could quickly kill off all the fish.
Fortunately they had a small conventional trout farm on the side, and that's where he runs his business. But tearing down the concrete towers was a big expense.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:46 AM on August 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
My brother bought a trout farm facility, that was a bargain because it was a bankrupt business. They had built vertical trout towers, and had raised a huge amount of investment capital. But it turned out that the electrical power for the pumps ate up all the potential profits. In the case of trout, a power outage could quickly kill off all the fish.
Fortunately they had a small conventional trout farm on the side, and that's where he runs his business. But tearing down the concrete towers was a big expense.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:46 AM on August 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
vertical trout towers
if you know what I mean!
posted by thelonius at 9:12 AM on August 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
if you know what I mean!
posted by thelonius at 9:12 AM on August 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Let me get this straight. The idea is to fill fields with solar panels to grow grain in buildings?
posted by sjswitzer at 9:21 AM on August 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
posted by sjswitzer at 9:21 AM on August 23, 2020 [10 favorites]
I would be curious if someone could do the actual math for lighting energy, as listed, in terms of solar land area requirements. Like GCU Sweet and Full of Grace says you aren't just recreating sunlight, so I'd be surprised if you really needed anything proportional to what we're doing in fields now. Contrary to Dr. Pangloss, the sun is not ideal for Earth plants--a lot of metabolic energy is spent protecting themselves from UV damage instead of harvesting it, so it's wasted twice.
They mention water savings but soil and fertilizer needs would be important too. I suppose fertilizer is the same as ever, if you assume food production ramps up one way or another?
I'm glad the article makes clear that "yield" and generic efficiency/desirability are not the same thing. This is land use efficient but not capital or energy efficient.
Food for SF writers, regardless of whether it gets used in the real world.
posted by mark k at 9:30 AM on August 23, 2020
They mention water savings but soil and fertilizer needs would be important too. I suppose fertilizer is the same as ever, if you assume food production ramps up one way or another?
I'm glad the article makes clear that "yield" and generic efficiency/desirability are not the same thing. This is land use efficient but not capital or energy efficient.
Food for SF writers, regardless of whether it gets used in the real world.
posted by mark k at 9:30 AM on August 23, 2020
Someone who would propose growing grain in buildings has never worked in a greenhouse or cleaned a bathroom.
posted by sjswitzer at 9:39 AM on August 23, 2020
posted by sjswitzer at 9:39 AM on August 23, 2020
Vertical farming is a wet dream for the techbros, but it is inherently inefficient.
On the one hand: you have inefficiencies from conversion of solar energy to electricty, electricity transmission, electricity storage, and conversion of electricity to solar energy. And let’s not even get into harvesting inefficiencies.
On the other hand, you have the fucking sun and earth and a combine. Modern farming is a WONDER of efficiencies. Farmers work on margins no other industry could survive on, and are more efficient than techbros could ever imagine.
I come from multi-generational family farming, and have worked on vertical farming models. The only way they work is with fusion power. Electricity generation, transmission, and storage has to be multiple orders or magnitude more efficient than it currently is for vertical farming to work.
posted by weed donkey at 9:41 AM on August 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
On the one hand: you have inefficiencies from conversion of solar energy to electricty, electricity transmission, electricity storage, and conversion of electricity to solar energy. And let’s not even get into harvesting inefficiencies.
On the other hand, you have the fucking sun and earth and a combine. Modern farming is a WONDER of efficiencies. Farmers work on margins no other industry could survive on, and are more efficient than techbros could ever imagine.
I come from multi-generational family farming, and have worked on vertical farming models. The only way they work is with fusion power. Electricity generation, transmission, and storage has to be multiple orders or magnitude more efficient than it currently is for vertical farming to work.
posted by weed donkey at 9:41 AM on August 23, 2020 [12 favorites]
This seems like a handy paper study on the path for closed-ish space-based foodsystems where you could feed it juice from enormous solar collectors, and need to recycle waste heat more so than urban Earth-based.
posted by janell at 9:51 AM on August 23, 2020
posted by janell at 9:51 AM on August 23, 2020
Wheat, like other grains, is already dirt cheap compared to produce and meat. More efficient grain production wild be welcome, but to feed more people, we could also simply shift to grain consumption.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 9:54 AM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 9:54 AM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
This is a promising development for the future of mankind. Life in the bunkers will be better if we can make sandwiches.
posted by MrVisible at 10:03 AM on August 23, 2020
posted by MrVisible at 10:03 AM on August 23, 2020
I thought there were recent analyses saying population growth globally was about to stall out in a pretty serious way? In which case wouldn't they run into the problem of not really needing this level of density even if they had fusion power to run it all?
...kinda seems like the only application for this type of thing would be space stations or Mars. Have 'em give Musk a call.
posted by aramaic at 10:25 AM on August 23, 2020
...kinda seems like the only application for this type of thing would be space stations or Mars. Have 'em give Musk a call.
posted by aramaic at 10:25 AM on August 23, 2020
I only saw my first large scale vertical farm last month in Jackson Hole, WY. Didn’t quite know what I was looking at first - it’s a fancy one where the plants “move” vertically around. I mean they look pretty cool and all - and in a place like Jackson Hole where the growing season is 4 months due to prolonged winters it makes sense for year round produce. No idea on the economics of it - but fun to watch and talked to our kids about where food comes from for about 20 mins while we looked at it.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:42 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:42 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Why do these guys insist on trying to solve the wrong problems, over and over? The problem is not a lack of arable land to grow grains, but a huge proportion of the grain being used for fuel, another big chunk for feeding livestock (cows can eat grass!), and then a whole lot of what remains is wasted. Then the actual problem of people not having enough calories is entirely a distribution problem, not at all a scarcity problem.
And when it comes to energy, we already have an enormous challenge to shift away from fossil fuels to renewables. We don't need to add a whole lot more energy demand into the equation.
If you're sincerely worried about the environmental impact of transporting grain, then advocate for the electrification of the railways that transport the grain!
But sure, tech bros get to feel good about themselves by imagining they're doing something good when it's really just technowank that distracts from the very real problems that exist in the real world.
posted by ssg at 10:47 AM on August 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
And when it comes to energy, we already have an enormous challenge to shift away from fossil fuels to renewables. We don't need to add a whole lot more energy demand into the equation.
If you're sincerely worried about the environmental impact of transporting grain, then advocate for the electrification of the railways that transport the grain!
But sure, tech bros get to feel good about themselves by imagining they're doing something good when it's really just technowank that distracts from the very real problems that exist in the real world.
posted by ssg at 10:47 AM on August 23, 2020 [11 favorites]
" with solar panel efficiency of ~25% and LED efficiency of 50%..."
Plants, photosynthetically, are only 3-6% efficient, and they only use red and blue light. The efficiency chain of converting broadband sunlight to LED lighting has to be factored based on that.
We would be harvesting light 4 times more efficiently than plants do, per square meter, and losing only half of that power during conversion to light, without wasting any energy on useless green and infrared light. That's at least twice as good as plants do by themselves.
There's also the cosine function to consider: grain crops are level, and the sun always slants, limiting the light intensity available on a square meter of soil from the sun. In a building, with an artificial sky of LED illumination, this cosine factor is always 1.
It'll be done like this on the moon, or on Mars, but I think things will be dire before we do it here.
posted by the Real Dan at 11:18 AM on August 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
Plants, photosynthetically, are only 3-6% efficient, and they only use red and blue light. The efficiency chain of converting broadband sunlight to LED lighting has to be factored based on that.
We would be harvesting light 4 times more efficiently than plants do, per square meter, and losing only half of that power during conversion to light, without wasting any energy on useless green and infrared light. That's at least twice as good as plants do by themselves.
There's also the cosine function to consider: grain crops are level, and the sun always slants, limiting the light intensity available on a square meter of soil from the sun. In a building, with an artificial sky of LED illumination, this cosine factor is always 1.
It'll be done like this on the moon, or on Mars, but I think things will be dire before we do it here.
posted by the Real Dan at 11:18 AM on August 23, 2020 [5 favorites]
The thing about land covered in solar panels is that you don't have to water it or spray it with pesticides and fertilizer. From the planet's pov, a solar panel field is a win. No runoff, wild natives could grow, etc.
How much energy does creating, shipping, spreading and then cleaning up runoff from fertilizer and pesticides use?
No one way of farming works everywhere and there will always be some open air farming but moving any of it off the land and closer to consumers makes a real difference in multiple ways.
posted by emjaybee at 11:20 AM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
How much energy does creating, shipping, spreading and then cleaning up runoff from fertilizer and pesticides use?
No one way of farming works everywhere and there will always be some open air farming but moving any of it off the land and closer to consumers makes a real difference in multiple ways.
posted by emjaybee at 11:20 AM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
The real dan: the problem with your math is that there are still plants at the end of it. Artificial light is still, after all it’s creation, only going to be absorbed at a 3-6% efficiency as well. This is compounding inefficiency, not solving it.
posted by weed donkey at 11:28 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by weed donkey at 11:28 AM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
I know solar gets a lot of attention because its generally more efficient, but I'd love to see what exactly a daisy chain of high altitude aerostats with wind turbines in them could produce. I generally agree that vertical farming isn't the best plan, but I don't know if looking at wind against solar output would change the calculation at all...but generally isn't the idea if you take them high enough, you run into the jet stream level winds and always have access to power?
posted by furnace.heart at 11:29 AM on August 23, 2020
posted by furnace.heart at 11:29 AM on August 23, 2020
I remember as a kid there were tons of thinkpieces about how solar would never ever be viable because we’d never solve the battery storage problem. And then we did.
We did? When/how did we do that?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 1:09 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
We did? When/how did we do that?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 1:09 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
GCU Sweet and Full of Grace: OTOH I'd guess that any hardcore commercial implementation wouldn't be using white light but instead just blasting the shit out of the maximum-absorption blue light. So 1/8 of the energy, but all at the 90% absorption peak.
Thanks for the knowledge about absorption spectra - something I didn't know about! That brings us down to around the size of Europe or the USA needed for solar panels. Still a lot of solar panels to keep clean and a lot of land kept in shade.
posted by clawsoon at 1:14 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Thanks for the knowledge about absorption spectra - something I didn't know about! That brings us down to around the size of Europe or the USA needed for solar panels. Still a lot of solar panels to keep clean and a lot of land kept in shade.
posted by clawsoon at 1:14 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
emjaybee: The thing about land covered in solar panels is that you don't have to water it
You do have to keep the panels clean, though. From what I'm admittedly quickly Googling, the automated systems used to keep large solar farms clean sound kind of like the large automated sprinkler irrigation systems used for industrial agriculture. I have no idea how the amount of water needed would compare (probably depends on how dusty the area is?) or how bad evaporation would be compared to agricultural irrigation.
posted by clawsoon at 1:25 PM on August 23, 2020
You do have to keep the panels clean, though. From what I'm admittedly quickly Googling, the automated systems used to keep large solar farms clean sound kind of like the large automated sprinkler irrigation systems used for industrial agriculture. I have no idea how the amount of water needed would compare (probably depends on how dusty the area is?) or how bad evaporation would be compared to agricultural irrigation.
posted by clawsoon at 1:25 PM on August 23, 2020
the current world average annual wheat yield [of] 3.2 t/ha, ahem
Just the latest world wheat record broken in New Zealand 17.4t/ha. But it keeps on happening and this is two tons up on the last record. And this is in a normal field.
220 to 600 is a huge variance. Good farmland in NZ is worth ~NZ$40k/Ha. IDK current high-rise construction costs, I do know a single multistory carpark space (steel and concrete, with a low ceiling) is ~NZ$30k a space, and the lighting won't be good for plant growth.
But if we can utilise roof space (I know a bit is happening in US, Can, .nl), that would be a completely different ballgame, as you can tap into existing building infrastructure/services - BUT it would still be very manual and who want's to pay highly-skilled (but manual) workers.
emjaybee How much energy does creating, shipping, spreading and then cleaning up runoff from fertilizer. "At the higher end, the estimated cost of some environmental externalities surpasses the 2012 dairy export revenue of NZ$11.6 billion" Abstract only, and I emphasis this is grass-based dairy only, sheep (in general) and field crops are nothing like this. Oh and much of those "environmental externalities" are dealt with by community groups trying to repair the damage and all encouraged by major industrial players.
It makes me angry so I shall go off and design a school playground now.
posted by unearthed at 1:32 PM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Just the latest world wheat record broken in New Zealand 17.4t/ha. But it keeps on happening and this is two tons up on the last record. And this is in a normal field.
220 to 600 is a huge variance. Good farmland in NZ is worth ~NZ$40k/Ha. IDK current high-rise construction costs, I do know a single multistory carpark space (steel and concrete, with a low ceiling) is ~NZ$30k a space, and the lighting won't be good for plant growth.
But if we can utilise roof space (I know a bit is happening in US, Can, .nl), that would be a completely different ballgame, as you can tap into existing building infrastructure/services - BUT it would still be very manual and who want's to pay highly-skilled (but manual) workers.
emjaybee How much energy does creating, shipping, spreading and then cleaning up runoff from fertilizer. "At the higher end, the estimated cost of some environmental externalities surpasses the 2012 dairy export revenue of NZ$11.6 billion" Abstract only, and I emphasis this is grass-based dairy only, sheep (in general) and field crops are nothing like this. Oh and much of those "environmental externalities" are dealt with by community groups trying to repair the damage and all encouraged by major industrial players.
It makes me angry so I shall go off and design a school playground now.
posted by unearthed at 1:32 PM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
No mention of how anyone would harvest the wheat. A combine weighs 18 tons and is 4 meters high. This hypothetical building need an elevator the size of an aircraft carrier's.
posted by leaper at 1:51 PM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by leaper at 1:51 PM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
Wheat flour substitutes catering to the demand for gluten-free products are surprisingly good in some applications. Assuming that the maths works out in the first place, I expect that you could get further efficiencies by growing perennial crops like taro as well/instead of wheat.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:21 PM on August 23, 2020
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:21 PM on August 23, 2020
No mention of how anyone would harvest the wheat.
Genetically modified eight-armed chimpanzees. Modified to be obligate carnivores to keep them from eating the grain. Probably need to make them smarter to work around the machinery. That's the ticket.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:27 PM on August 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
Genetically modified eight-armed chimpanzees. Modified to be obligate carnivores to keep them from eating the grain. Probably need to make them smarter to work around the machinery. That's the ticket.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:27 PM on August 23, 2020 [6 favorites]
leaper: No mention of how anyone would harvest the wheat. A combine weighs 18 tons and is 4 meters high. This hypothetical building need an elevator the size of an aircraft carrier's.
I've been wondering about drying the grain before harvest, too. How much energy that we mostly currently get directly from the sun would be needed to get the grain from wet, live plant down to 14% moisture?
They did mention using a double semidwarf variety to keep height needs down, so at least they've covered that base.
posted by clawsoon at 2:30 PM on August 23, 2020
I've been wondering about drying the grain before harvest, too. How much energy that we mostly currently get directly from the sun would be needed to get the grain from wet, live plant down to 14% moisture?
They did mention using a double semidwarf variety to keep height needs down, so at least they've covered that base.
posted by clawsoon at 2:30 PM on August 23, 2020
GCU Sweet and Full of Grace re blue light. Unfortunately food plants need full spectrum light - I'm sure genetech could narrow this but that just makes more problems.
In another age I studied photosynthesis and drew this figure for a general plant physiology term paper. It's a forestry case but photosynthesis is broadly similar across the plant kingdom. It has a boatload of refs to back up assertions and it got a lot of comments and a triple A from professor, so I've used it as a guide since.
posted by unearthed at 2:47 PM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
In another age I studied photosynthesis and drew this figure for a general plant physiology term paper. It's a forestry case but photosynthesis is broadly similar across the plant kingdom. It has a boatload of refs to back up assertions and it got a lot of comments and a triple A from professor, so I've used it as a guide since.
posted by unearthed at 2:47 PM on August 23, 2020 [2 favorites]
A bunch of bros are trying to sell various vertical/ enclosed/ fire-and-forget systems for growing Cannabis - a far higher margin crop than wheat - and I could barely stop myself from LOL-ing in their faces when hearing their pitches.
This is like the MIT Media Lab "Food Computer" previously, but on a larger scale.
Great point, clawsoon, about drying the grain. That's where non-specific solar energy out in an open field is useful. If the grain comes out wet, even in a hermetically sealed grow chamber, once it comes out and is exposed, all kinds of microbes will colonize and ruin the harvest.
In Cannabis, the inflorescences are harvested wet and go through a curing process. Traditionally, it goes through several stages and takes days-weeks (and you have to be super careful that moulds don't colonize it during the initial stages). There are fast drying equipment that can do it in hours but consume a lot of energy, either electricity or natural gas, and you end up with a far inferior product. Either way, lots of producers still have to gamma irradiate the product to make it pass microbiological contaminant testing.
For manual harvest, I'm sure some sort of statically located combine sized correctly to each "level" of the grow system could be used. Instead of moving the combine over a field, move each level (or section of each level) through the static harvester.
Unless this is aero- or hydro- ponic, there's the issue of roots/ soil that has to be processed - usually they're tilled back into the soil during planting of the next crop's seeds (?).
posted by porpoise at 2:48 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
This is like the MIT Media Lab "Food Computer" previously, but on a larger scale.
Great point, clawsoon, about drying the grain. That's where non-specific solar energy out in an open field is useful. If the grain comes out wet, even in a hermetically sealed grow chamber, once it comes out and is exposed, all kinds of microbes will colonize and ruin the harvest.
In Cannabis, the inflorescences are harvested wet and go through a curing process. Traditionally, it goes through several stages and takes days-weeks (and you have to be super careful that moulds don't colonize it during the initial stages). There are fast drying equipment that can do it in hours but consume a lot of energy, either electricity or natural gas, and you end up with a far inferior product. Either way, lots of producers still have to gamma irradiate the product to make it pass microbiological contaminant testing.
For manual harvest, I'm sure some sort of statically located combine sized correctly to each "level" of the grow system could be used. Instead of moving the combine over a field, move each level (or section of each level) through the static harvester.
Unless this is aero- or hydro- ponic, there's the issue of roots/ soil that has to be processed - usually they're tilled back into the soil during planting of the next crop's seeds (?).
posted by porpoise at 2:48 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
The PNAS article appears to be quite honest about how growing wheat in vertical farms is not economically competitive today under ordinary market conditions, primarily due to energy costs. As an exploration of what advantages one could achieve using the controlled conditions of vertical farming, I think the article succeeded. The biggest seemed to be (1) up to five crops per year growing 24/7, (2) use of high CO2 (1200 ppm) atmosphere for higher yields, and (3) reductions in pesticide and herbicides to nearly zero.
Wind and hydro are renewable sources of energy that could produce outside of daylight hours. Still not cheap, though.
Have I missed some advantages that others have noticed?
posted by haiku warrior at 3:14 PM on August 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
Wind and hydro are renewable sources of energy that could produce outside of daylight hours. Still not cheap, though.
Have I missed some advantages that others have noticed?
posted by haiku warrior at 3:14 PM on August 23, 2020 [4 favorites]
It does feel like something that you'd set up next to your fusion plant.
posted by clawsoon at 3:16 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by clawsoon at 3:16 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Thanks again for posting kliuless, I probably wont get to all these links for weeks, but the pnas article is stimulating alone.
haiku warrior I think it could work on Earth if it was part of something else, for instance co-located next to a heat and energy source. As a stable heat volume it could also be valuable in its own right
One of the challenges with rising CO2 is that plant nutrition (for our foods) has been falling off ever since the industrial revolution when CO2 started moving above its 280ppm Holocene baseline. Even now this is measurable and at 450ppm plus will significantly impact human health; We will have to start living as if we lived on Mars.
One could also imagine a role for air purification with a vertical farm stack (outside of pollen season!).
As an industrial ecology it would be very valuable. the barriers (which the techbros mighty be able to solve) are mainly in thinking and planning holistically and getting lenders and insurers to lend and insure based on multiple income and risk streams
posted by unearthed at 4:54 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
haiku warrior I think it could work on Earth if it was part of something else, for instance co-located next to a heat and energy source. As a stable heat volume it could also be valuable in its own right
One of the challenges with rising CO2 is that plant nutrition (for our foods) has been falling off ever since the industrial revolution when CO2 started moving above its 280ppm Holocene baseline. Even now this is measurable and at 450ppm plus will significantly impact human health; We will have to start living as if we lived on Mars.
One could also imagine a role for air purification with a vertical farm stack (outside of pollen season!).
As an industrial ecology it would be very valuable. the barriers (which the techbros mighty be able to solve) are mainly in thinking and planning holistically and getting lenders and insurers to lend and insure based on multiple income and risk streams
posted by unearthed at 4:54 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
If we already inequitably distribute and waste the food we grow now, why would growing more food into the same distribution and usage model actually feed more people?
posted by Grimp0teuthis at 7:03 PM on August 23, 2020
posted by Grimp0teuthis at 7:03 PM on August 23, 2020
Unfortunately food plants need full spectrum light
God, it seems sometimes that plants are somehow even stupider than babies.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:30 PM on August 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
God, it seems sometimes that plants are somehow even stupider than babies.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:30 PM on August 23, 2020 [3 favorites]
For improved energy efficiency, I feel like holographic light tubes would be perfectly suited to these types of structures.
posted by Mister Moofoo at 8:13 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Mister Moofoo at 8:13 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
In their calculations in the appendix, based on some experiments they think 7984 kWh/m2/year including lights, running the building, and cooling. Googling suggests a "standard" panel right now is 0.19 kwp per meter. The global solar atlas suggests that in the midwest US, one gets about 1.5 MWh / year per 1 kwp with a "large install". So you need 7984/1500/.19 approx 28 square meters of solar panel per meter of wheat (before transmission losses). This also assumes perfect storage (or fungible energy sources and sinks). They claim to be 63 times as efficient per square meter of soil, so you come out "ahead" in that you can replace 1 sq meter of farm with 0.44 sq meter of solar panel. Their solar facility calc says to replace 1 sq meter of farm they need 0.66 sq meter of solar facility (which is only 50% covered in panels), so in the same ballpark.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 9:28 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by a robot made out of meat at 9:28 PM on August 23, 2020 [1 favorite]
Ditto some of the above about light spectrum stuff. You might only have to hit it with a fraction of 'daylight' to get the job done.
Another thing is the usually hydroponic bit. No pesticides, fungicides or the like and one place to manage crop health and nutrition. Any time you can sample and adjust the water and take care of a whole crop at once.
Every plant has the same environment. Everything is grown in an ideal environment.
Eh, might actually come out as a win.
Amazing Hydroponic farm Japan Gandpa Dome
Oh, not vertical... but cool. They plant seedlings in the middle and they rotate out and by the time the reach the edge they're done. Endless Lettuce!
No growing seasons. No dry spells. No weather. Little uncertainty and predictable results.
posted by zengargoyle at 11:13 PM on August 23, 2020
Another thing is the usually hydroponic bit. No pesticides, fungicides or the like and one place to manage crop health and nutrition. Any time you can sample and adjust the water and take care of a whole crop at once.
Every plant has the same environment. Everything is grown in an ideal environment.
Eh, might actually come out as a win.
Amazing Hydroponic farm Japan Gandpa Dome
Oh, not vertical... but cool. They plant seedlings in the middle and they rotate out and by the time the reach the edge they're done. Endless Lettuce!
No growing seasons. No dry spells. No weather. Little uncertainty and predictable results.
posted by zengargoyle at 11:13 PM on August 23, 2020
The solar area is actually a factor of 2-3 worse than that because they run the lights 24 hours at full blast.
Wait, why? I mean, nighttime is a thing that exists.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:02 AM on August 24, 2020
Wait, why? I mean, nighttime is a thing that exists.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:02 AM on August 24, 2020
As with so many things it cites down to energy. I swear the factor that determines if we get the Star Trek future or the grimdark neo feudalism future is energy production.
Automation + lots of cheap and eco friendly energy = win for everyone
Automation + basically today's energy = neo feudalism and us as serfs.
posted by sotonohito at 8:44 AM on August 24, 2020
Automation + lots of cheap and eco friendly energy = win for everyone
Automation + basically today's energy = neo feudalism and us as serfs.
posted by sotonohito at 8:44 AM on August 24, 2020
I will add that vertical farming has at least some minor success for short shelf life items like lettuce and greens. Factoring in that refrigeration and shipping costs some places claim that growing those crops at the grocery store is cost effective.
posted by sotonohito at 8:54 AM on August 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 8:54 AM on August 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: Wait, why? I mean, nighttime is a thing that exists.
Many strange and useful things were discovered about plants because of marijuana's criminalization and popularity. The need to keep grow-ops hidden and the advantage of completing a crop as quickly and efficiently as possible led to a lot of experimentation with light cycles and spectra. Turns out plants can use more hours of light per day than the sun gives them.
posted by clawsoon at 9:09 AM on August 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
Many strange and useful things were discovered about plants because of marijuana's criminalization and popularity. The need to keep grow-ops hidden and the advantage of completing a crop as quickly and efficiently as possible led to a lot of experimentation with light cycles and spectra. Turns out plants can use more hours of light per day than the sun gives them.
posted by clawsoon at 9:09 AM on August 24, 2020 [2 favorites]
As someone who's grown cannabis (legally) indoors and outdoors, the growing techniques are vastly different. Outdoor plants of the same genetics (I.e. clones, so it's not even siblings, but the actual same genetics) end up hardier. Likely it's a combination of 1) such a great energy source from the sun, and 2) the constant low level stresses of being outside.
Indoor farmers work to supply optimal air temperatures and humidity to avoid the plant doing extremely poorly from heat stress, or improper vapor pressures severely hampering growth. Outdoors, my plants have seen weeks of 30C+ days in both humid and dry times and weathered it (heh) like champs.
Sub par soil that if you put it in a pot and used it for an indoor grow will turn out poorly. But somehow outdoors you can get a pretty nice tree.
One of the better examples in my minds of just general outdoor plants not being a fading violet (heh again), is cannabis depends upon photo periods for deciding to flower. Outdoor plants will start flowering sometime when there's about 13.5-14.5 hours of time from sun up to sun down. The moon, and most streetlights don't effect this. Indoors, the rule of thumb is to go all the way down to 12 hours light, 12 hours dark to be safe that flowering will happen, and a minor light leak in the tent, or a small LED on a humidifier/equipment in the tent has been known to either prevent flowering, or stress the plants to reveg after briefly flowing, or start expressing both male and female parts (something not desired, as male parts will seed the female parts, and the female buds is where the THC/CBD are primarily created).
Also re: LED's and not needing full spectrum light. Red/Blue grow lights were a big thing a few years back. The thing is, plants just don't grow as well under them. Some of the spectrum of light gets used in different processes, and that's not fully understood yet. While full spectrum might be overkill in some situations, the only people still buying "blurple" lights to grow indoors are those who haven't done the research.
It seems that some part of controlling the environment of an indoor grow greatly weakens the ability of the plants to handle a curve ball. But because of the lessened quality of light (even using either the best HID lights, or the best (and much more initially expensive (albeit more efficient)) LED lights, the plants need a tightly controlled environment.
All this seems a long way to go to say that this paper seems like it's talking about how Spherical cows can be the future of milk production if only we can get the cost of wheat and grass to go down.
posted by nobeagle at 9:41 AM on August 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
Indoor farmers work to supply optimal air temperatures and humidity to avoid the plant doing extremely poorly from heat stress, or improper vapor pressures severely hampering growth. Outdoors, my plants have seen weeks of 30C+ days in both humid and dry times and weathered it (heh) like champs.
Sub par soil that if you put it in a pot and used it for an indoor grow will turn out poorly. But somehow outdoors you can get a pretty nice tree.
One of the better examples in my minds of just general outdoor plants not being a fading violet (heh again), is cannabis depends upon photo periods for deciding to flower. Outdoor plants will start flowering sometime when there's about 13.5-14.5 hours of time from sun up to sun down. The moon, and most streetlights don't effect this. Indoors, the rule of thumb is to go all the way down to 12 hours light, 12 hours dark to be safe that flowering will happen, and a minor light leak in the tent, or a small LED on a humidifier/equipment in the tent has been known to either prevent flowering, or stress the plants to reveg after briefly flowing, or start expressing both male and female parts (something not desired, as male parts will seed the female parts, and the female buds is where the THC/CBD are primarily created).
Also re: LED's and not needing full spectrum light. Red/Blue grow lights were a big thing a few years back. The thing is, plants just don't grow as well under them. Some of the spectrum of light gets used in different processes, and that's not fully understood yet. While full spectrum might be overkill in some situations, the only people still buying "blurple" lights to grow indoors are those who haven't done the research.
It seems that some part of controlling the environment of an indoor grow greatly weakens the ability of the plants to handle a curve ball. But because of the lessened quality of light (even using either the best HID lights, or the best (and much more initially expensive (albeit more efficient)) LED lights, the plants need a tightly controlled environment.
All this seems a long way to go to say that this paper seems like it's talking about how Spherical cows can be the future of milk production if only we can get the cost of wheat and grass to go down.
posted by nobeagle at 9:41 AM on August 24, 2020 [4 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos: Wait, why? I mean, nighttime is a thing that exists.
As clawsoon mentions, one can get more efficiency. And this is something that's still argued with cannabis; cannabis does have some cycles that occur mostly at night, and even will exhibit nastic movements regularly when subjected to 24 hours of light.
Most indoor cannabis growers opt for 18/6 or 20/4 light schedules instead of 24/0 - as some of the studies done have shown very little benefit going over 18/20 hours/day of light. This minimal benefit is weighed against the cost of the extra hours of electricity (and further degradation of equipment that wears out based upon hours of usage). But, if you want to start your plants flowering after they reach a certain stage of vegetative growth, if you can take 5-7 days off of that vegetative stage, that puts you a little bit closer to pay day. So if you're more concerned about a sooner payday that you can leverage for building up your grows, being less efficient is incentivized.
The hours of light can actually help shape the plant; cannabis leaves grow mostly during daylight hours, while the stems grow mostly during the night hours. So a plant grown in 24/0 will be shorter and bushier than an 18/6 plant.
Some plants don't have much of a night cycle (I'm unsure if wheat does), but if they don't, then there's no (readily apparent) reason to waste time not optimizing growth. If they do need a night cycle and they end up paying for electricity with "time of use" pricing, running the lights at 7pm-7am and having no windows for natural lighting would be more cost effective than running at peak pricing times, but having some small amounts of free light via windows.
posted by nobeagle at 9:53 AM on August 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
As clawsoon mentions, one can get more efficiency. And this is something that's still argued with cannabis; cannabis does have some cycles that occur mostly at night, and even will exhibit nastic movements regularly when subjected to 24 hours of light.
Most indoor cannabis growers opt for 18/6 or 20/4 light schedules instead of 24/0 - as some of the studies done have shown very little benefit going over 18/20 hours/day of light. This minimal benefit is weighed against the cost of the extra hours of electricity (and further degradation of equipment that wears out based upon hours of usage). But, if you want to start your plants flowering after they reach a certain stage of vegetative growth, if you can take 5-7 days off of that vegetative stage, that puts you a little bit closer to pay day. So if you're more concerned about a sooner payday that you can leverage for building up your grows, being less efficient is incentivized.
The hours of light can actually help shape the plant; cannabis leaves grow mostly during daylight hours, while the stems grow mostly during the night hours. So a plant grown in 24/0 will be shorter and bushier than an 18/6 plant.
Some plants don't have much of a night cycle (I'm unsure if wheat does), but if they don't, then there's no (readily apparent) reason to waste time not optimizing growth. If they do need a night cycle and they end up paying for electricity with "time of use" pricing, running the lights at 7pm-7am and having no windows for natural lighting would be more cost effective than running at peak pricing times, but having some small amounts of free light via windows.
posted by nobeagle at 9:53 AM on August 24, 2020 [5 favorites]
Funnily enough I asked some related questions a little while back on absorption spectra.
The conclusion seemed to be "buy some farmland"
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:09 AM on August 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
The conclusion seemed to be "buy some farmland"
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 11:09 AM on August 24, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older AI Slays Top F-16 Pilot in DARPA Dogfight | Hand signs beyond standard ASL Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by gwint at 6:23 AM on August 23, 2020 [11 favorites]