Replacing schools/golf courses/churches with vertical farms.
August 11, 2010 2:19 AM Subscribe
What are the not-so-obvious problems that may occur if a major city replaced dying schools/golf courses/churches with multi-leveled solar/geothermal powered hydroponic vertical farms?
Obvious problems being some local farm markets/grocery stores unable to compete and possibly some job losses. Just want to hear about the potential problems, hopefully something most people haven't thought of.
Please don't turn this into chatfilter, à la "we need to keep/save the golf courses/churches because _____"
Obvious problems being some local farm markets/grocery stores unable to compete and possibly some job losses. Just want to hear about the potential problems, hopefully something most people haven't thought of.
Please don't turn this into chatfilter, à la "we need to keep/save the golf courses/churches because _____"
Not sure which of these count as non-obvious:
Vertical farming might not make sense in itself. The case of the local farmers outcompeting the vertical farms is more likely.
Loss of social centers and creation of sleeper towns around these farms.
Geothermal power generation seems to increase the risks of earthquakes. Not a good thing to do in cities.
posted by Triton at 2:30 AM on August 11, 2010
Vertical farming might not make sense in itself. The case of the local farmers outcompeting the vertical farms is more likely.
Loss of social centers and creation of sleeper towns around these farms.
Geothermal power generation seems to increase the risks of earthquakes. Not a good thing to do in cities.
posted by Triton at 2:30 AM on August 11, 2010
... I don't see why local grocery stores would be unable to compete. A farm is not a grocery store. And presumably this farm requires employees too?
How are you intending to get light into the middle of this farm?
I'd think you'd want to save all the rainwater anyway, to run the farm, no? So it doesn't matter if it's concrete underneath, you can catch and store the rainwater. And waste water from the farm would be pretty constant, not affecting the sewerage.
The only other argument I can come up with at the moment is that once upon a time in the Netherlands, someone considered doing some sort of multistorey industrial livestock farm (can't remember if it was pigs or chickens, fairly sure it never got built), and there were many more complaints about the potential for smell to travel further.
posted by Lebannen at 2:34 AM on August 11, 2010
How are you intending to get light into the middle of this farm?
I'd think you'd want to save all the rainwater anyway, to run the farm, no? So it doesn't matter if it's concrete underneath, you can catch and store the rainwater. And waste water from the farm would be pretty constant, not affecting the sewerage.
The only other argument I can come up with at the moment is that once upon a time in the Netherlands, someone considered doing some sort of multistorey industrial livestock farm (can't remember if it was pigs or chickens, fairly sure it never got built), and there were many more complaints about the potential for smell to travel further.
posted by Lebannen at 2:34 AM on August 11, 2010
There might be environmental impacts from consumers going further afield to use schools, golf courses and churches elsewhere. This might also imply some loss of social capital for the individuals concerned and for the local community as a whole.
There might be a fall in land house values in the area as the sites would effectively be getting rezoned to become industrial sites.
Are you using the geothermal for heating purposes only? I assume so as the potential for electrical generation is limited to specific locations. Heat pumps imply considerable electricity use, with associated emissions unless enough RE genrated electricity can be sourced. Care would also have to be taken that the use of GSHP could be supported in the long term without losses in efficiency due to cooling of the ground.
Is the solar for electrical generation or heating? Obviously enough PV could address the electricity issue mentioned above. PV remains expensive though and much of the expense comes up front, a major factor in overall economic viability. It seems likely you will need fairly large amount of electricity for lgithing purposes.
Bear in mind how capacity would change with expansion vertically, ie as you build up the available growing space would increase more rapidly than the space available for solar energy exploitation.
I'm not an engineer, but would it be worth considering building down rather than up in terms of minimising heat costs? Again, digging implies its own costs.
posted by biffa at 2:41 AM on August 11, 2010
There might be a fall in land house values in the area as the sites would effectively be getting rezoned to become industrial sites.
Are you using the geothermal for heating purposes only? I assume so as the potential for electrical generation is limited to specific locations. Heat pumps imply considerable electricity use, with associated emissions unless enough RE genrated electricity can be sourced. Care would also have to be taken that the use of GSHP could be supported in the long term without losses in efficiency due to cooling of the ground.
Is the solar for electrical generation or heating? Obviously enough PV could address the electricity issue mentioned above. PV remains expensive though and much of the expense comes up front, a major factor in overall economic viability. It seems likely you will need fairly large amount of electricity for lgithing purposes.
Bear in mind how capacity would change with expansion vertically, ie as you build up the available growing space would increase more rapidly than the space available for solar energy exploitation.
I'm not an engineer, but would it be worth considering building down rather than up in terms of minimising heat costs? Again, digging implies its own costs.
posted by biffa at 2:41 AM on August 11, 2010
Response by poster: @Lebannen — The farm would be a store as well (on the first floor?) and it would employ people to maintain the system.
Assuming each vertical farm has 5 to 10 floors that grow an abundance of popular crops like lettuce/tomatoes/etc and is sold much cheaper than local markets, then it would be hard for some farm markets/grocery stores to compete since they have to get the goods from actual farms outside of the city (job losses for truck drivers). These grocery stores would have to sell imported goods that are hard to grow in vertical farms, at a higher price.
Lighting, I'm not familiar with; so can't answer that one.
posted by querty at 2:41 AM on August 11, 2010
Assuming each vertical farm has 5 to 10 floors that grow an abundance of popular crops like lettuce/tomatoes/etc and is sold much cheaper than local markets, then it would be hard for some farm markets/grocery stores to compete since they have to get the goods from actual farms outside of the city (job losses for truck drivers). These grocery stores would have to sell imported goods that are hard to grow in vertical farms, at a higher price.
Lighting, I'm not familiar with; so can't answer that one.
posted by querty at 2:41 AM on August 11, 2010
Assuming each vertical farm has 5 to 10 floors that grow an abundance of popular crops like lettuce/tomatoes/etc and is sold much cheaper than local markets, then it would be hard for some farm markets/grocery stores to compete since they have to get the goods from actual farms outside of the city (job losses for truck drivers)
Wouldn't the vertical farms just sell their produce to the local grocery stores? If they were indeed cheaper to run than the out of town farms, its the out of town farms who would go out of business, not the local stores.
However the technology and materials required to build the vertical farms would mean that initially their crops would actually be way more expensive than out of town farm produce (since they are already established and growing stuff).
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:49 AM on August 11, 2010
Wouldn't the vertical farms just sell their produce to the local grocery stores? If they were indeed cheaper to run than the out of town farms, its the out of town farms who would go out of business, not the local stores.
However the technology and materials required to build the vertical farms would mean that initially their crops would actually be way more expensive than out of town farm produce (since they are already established and growing stuff).
posted by EndsOfInvention at 2:49 AM on August 11, 2010
Cost? If this is viable solution economically, why has no one done it already? In a country like the US, there's plenty of unused land in rural areas. A lot of this land isn't good for farming (or people would be farming there), but the inside of a large urban building has even worse farming conditions, so why bother? The big issue though is going to be energy: solar and geothermal aren't cheap (and geothermal isn't even that well understood yet), and it's going to take a ton of energy to run one of these urban vertical farms due to the need for massive artificial light, pumping of tremendous volumes of water for irrigation, power for machinery and equipment, and potentially even climate control depending on what you're growing. And even with all that, are you likely to get the same yields as a traditional farm backed by thousands of years of human experience in agriculture? We're not talking about slapping some solar panels on the roof, we're talking about a giant solar farm located offsite to power this beast. If you're going to do that, why not just have an actual farm in place of the solar farm and grow some food already?
Besides, if the goal is environmental, the environmental cost of building and maintaining these beasts is going to be far greater than that from traditional farming.
posted by zachlipton at 2:56 AM on August 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
Besides, if the goal is environmental, the environmental cost of building and maintaining these beasts is going to be far greater than that from traditional farming.
posted by zachlipton at 2:56 AM on August 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: @biffa — check out the energy efficiency blurb with the VertiCrop system: http://www.valcent.eu/documents/VertiCropFAQ-Current.pdf
So electricity use issues can be solved I would think.
posted by querty at 2:59 AM on August 11, 2010
So electricity use issues can be solved I would think.
posted by querty at 2:59 AM on August 11, 2010
Most cities outside of certain areas in the US don't have a plethora of dying schools/golf courses, and the real estate is far too valuable for such a consideration.
The profit margin on most forms of hydroponic farming are small enough that the investment in solar and - god help us - prohibitively expensive and experimental geothermal power would take decades to pay off.
Many cities are geographically located in areas that are unsuited to both geothermal and efficient solar power.
Most municipal bodies have zoning laws specifically prohibiting this kind of usage for a myriad of often good reasons. Land in cities can be exposed to all sorts of pollution via air, rain, and water. Moreover, there are many cities where land from golf courses and schools is actually land that was former landfill of industrial areas. In addition to the usual pollutants, this land can contain a variety of heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens and asbestos.
The other reason for zoning laws is that industrial development (which is what this is) can have a deflationary effect on neighbourhood property values. Large trucks coming and going at all hours incite the ire of residents; roads and other surfaces are not generally built for heavy vehicles, and they can interfere with traffic on arterial and other roads. Industrial use can also bring odours to a neighbourhood that are unwelcome.
Electricity and water infrastructure may be inadequate for industrial needs; upgrades are expensive and a government doesn't want to pony up/may not have the cash to do it.
There are lots of other reasons. The main bottom line however is that what you propose would be way, way, way too expensive. Farming is not as lucrative as you think it is.
posted by smoke at 3:03 AM on August 11, 2010
The profit margin on most forms of hydroponic farming are small enough that the investment in solar and - god help us - prohibitively expensive and experimental geothermal power would take decades to pay off.
Many cities are geographically located in areas that are unsuited to both geothermal and efficient solar power.
Most municipal bodies have zoning laws specifically prohibiting this kind of usage for a myriad of often good reasons. Land in cities can be exposed to all sorts of pollution via air, rain, and water. Moreover, there are many cities where land from golf courses and schools is actually land that was former landfill of industrial areas. In addition to the usual pollutants, this land can contain a variety of heavy metals, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens and asbestos.
The other reason for zoning laws is that industrial development (which is what this is) can have a deflationary effect on neighbourhood property values. Large trucks coming and going at all hours incite the ire of residents; roads and other surfaces are not generally built for heavy vehicles, and they can interfere with traffic on arterial and other roads. Industrial use can also bring odours to a neighbourhood that are unwelcome.
Electricity and water infrastructure may be inadequate for industrial needs; upgrades are expensive and a government doesn't want to pony up/may not have the cash to do it.
There are lots of other reasons. The main bottom line however is that what you propose would be way, way, way too expensive. Farming is not as lucrative as you think it is.
posted by smoke at 3:03 AM on August 11, 2010
Response by poster: Wouldn't the vertical farms just sell their produce to the local grocery stores?
Assuming the vertical farm is built on a site previously a church or school just across the street or within walking distance from the local grocery store, it would be pretty inefficient to delivery the goods over. It would make more sense to have a store on the first floor of the vertical farm selling the goods directly to the public, no?
posted by querty at 3:06 AM on August 11, 2010
Assuming the vertical farm is built on a site previously a church or school just across the street or within walking distance from the local grocery store, it would be pretty inefficient to delivery the goods over. It would make more sense to have a store on the first floor of the vertical farm selling the goods directly to the public, no?
posted by querty at 3:06 AM on August 11, 2010
From reading that article, it seems that a vertical farm would be a far greater boondoggle than building golf courses, churches and schools. It just doesn't seem to solve very many problems. All the problems they purport to solve can already be handled in other, cheaper ways. (In season) produce is dirt cheap. Mostly because of the efficiency that can be had with modern machinery. With this, one would seem to need a shit-ton of people to do the picking.
It is very difficult to get the HVAC right in standard buildings, I can't imagine what it will be like in a building dedicated to farming.
Who are we going to get to design and maintain these places if we don't have schools?
There are a couple of exceptions where I think they would be practical: a vertical greenhouse, perhaps as a shell on the south wall of an office building, would allow produce to be grown off-season. But it would also allow tropical fruits to be grown in more temperate climates, which would (hopefully?) increase their biodiversity and resistance to blight. It *could* help lower a building's energy footprint, acting like a roof garden in the summer to absorb heat, and as a buffer in the winter to keep heat in.
posted by gjc at 3:12 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
It is very difficult to get the HVAC right in standard buildings, I can't imagine what it will be like in a building dedicated to farming.
Who are we going to get to design and maintain these places if we don't have schools?
There are a couple of exceptions where I think they would be practical: a vertical greenhouse, perhaps as a shell on the south wall of an office building, would allow produce to be grown off-season. But it would also allow tropical fruits to be grown in more temperate climates, which would (hopefully?) increase their biodiversity and resistance to blight. It *could* help lower a building's energy footprint, acting like a roof garden in the summer to absorb heat, and as a buffer in the winter to keep heat in.
posted by gjc at 3:12 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Some of the golf courses here are designated run-off areas during flooding. When the rivers are getting high and flooding seems imminent they open the sluice gates and flood the golf courses.
Building a vertical farm to handle this kind of usage would be expensive!
posted by emilyw at 3:12 AM on August 11, 2010
Building a vertical farm to handle this kind of usage would be expensive!
posted by emilyw at 3:12 AM on August 11, 2010
Assuming each vertical farm has 5 to 10 floors that grow an abundance of popular crops like lettuce/tomatoes/etc and is sold much cheaper than local markets, then it would be hard for some farm markets/grocery stores to compete since they have to get the goods from actual farms outside of the city (job losses for truck drivers). These grocery stores would have to sell imported goods that are hard to grow in vertical farms, at a higher price.
That seems like a giant assumption here. Why would these crops be sold much cheaper than the crops at local markets? If you really could grow crops so efficiently in vertical farms, people wouldn't be building traditional farms.
Also, I'll note that lettuce, tomatoes, and such are somewhat low on the list of "popular crops," at least when it comes to the US. Popular crops, both in quantity and value, are things like corn, soybeans, and wheat (ok, and marijuana if you're counting value, but the price on that is artificially inflated). The amount of corn we grow is far greater most everything else put together. The numbers aren't that different worldwide, except that sugar cane tops the list.
The point here is that the fruits and veggies sold in the produce sections of grocery stores are a strikingly small proportion of our overall farm production. A great deal of crops get fed to livestock, used to produce ethanol, and converted to processed food products (e.g. corn syrup). Changing the way we grow lettuce doesn't put a dent in the way we grow our food, because for the most part, we're growing corn.
@biffa — check out the energy efficiency blurb with the VertiCrop system: http://www.valcent.eu/documents/VertiCropFAQ-Current.pdf
That's compared to growing crops in a greenhouse. Most farming doesn't happen in greenhouses.
posted by zachlipton at 3:12 AM on August 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
That seems like a giant assumption here. Why would these crops be sold much cheaper than the crops at local markets? If you really could grow crops so efficiently in vertical farms, people wouldn't be building traditional farms.
Also, I'll note that lettuce, tomatoes, and such are somewhat low on the list of "popular crops," at least when it comes to the US. Popular crops, both in quantity and value, are things like corn, soybeans, and wheat (ok, and marijuana if you're counting value, but the price on that is artificially inflated). The amount of corn we grow is far greater most everything else put together. The numbers aren't that different worldwide, except that sugar cane tops the list.
The point here is that the fruits and veggies sold in the produce sections of grocery stores are a strikingly small proportion of our overall farm production. A great deal of crops get fed to livestock, used to produce ethanol, and converted to processed food products (e.g. corn syrup). Changing the way we grow lettuce doesn't put a dent in the way we grow our food, because for the most part, we're growing corn.
@biffa — check out the energy efficiency blurb with the VertiCrop system: http://www.valcent.eu/documents/VertiCropFAQ-Current.pdf
That's compared to growing crops in a greenhouse. Most farming doesn't happen in greenhouses.
posted by zachlipton at 3:12 AM on August 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: @zachlipton — sorry, I meant "popular crops for hydroponics"; of course corn/soybean/wheat would be tops if we're talking traditionally.
posted by querty at 3:19 AM on August 11, 2010
posted by querty at 3:19 AM on August 11, 2010
Assuming the vertical farm is built on a site previously a church or school just across the street or within walking distance from the local grocery store, it would be pretty inefficient to delivery the goods over. It would make more sense to have a store on the first floor of the vertical farm selling the goods directly to the public, no?
If that was more efficient then we'd have all kinds of factories in the middle of cities selling their products direct. But we don't because it's cheaper to have the factory in a lower-rent industrial area and then ship the products to small retail outlets closer to the city center. Also, people want to buy food from their local grocery store, they are not going to trek to wherever the golf course used to be to buy some salad. Shipping to other outlets would also let the vertical farm reach far more customers in a larger area than if they only sold their stuff themselves from their location.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 3:25 AM on August 11, 2010
If that was more efficient then we'd have all kinds of factories in the middle of cities selling their products direct. But we don't because it's cheaper to have the factory in a lower-rent industrial area and then ship the products to small retail outlets closer to the city center. Also, people want to buy food from their local grocery store, they are not going to trek to wherever the golf course used to be to buy some salad. Shipping to other outlets would also let the vertical farm reach far more customers in a larger area than if they only sold their stuff themselves from their location.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 3:25 AM on August 11, 2010
Vast capital outlay compared to simply trucking in produce from a traditional farm.
posted by pompomtom at 3:29 AM on August 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by pompomtom at 3:29 AM on August 11, 2010 [2 favorites]
Right, but my point is that these kinds of crops make up such a small percentage of our agricultural production, that there's essentially no net impact on farming even if every head of lettuce grown in the country was grown in an urban vertical farm. Lettuce (all varieties) is around 325,400 acres in the US, nearly all of which is in California and Arizona. Corn, on the other hand, is 72.7 million acres.
Whatever benefits you'd hope to get from this scheme, and I still maintain it would be a staggering environmental and economic loss, they would be incredibly trivial compared to the scale of corn and soybean production.
posted by zachlipton at 3:34 AM on August 11, 2010
Whatever benefits you'd hope to get from this scheme, and I still maintain it would be a staggering environmental and economic loss, they would be incredibly trivial compared to the scale of corn and soybean production.
posted by zachlipton at 3:34 AM on August 11, 2010
Best answer: What are the not-so-obvious problems that may occur
Unprofitability, failure, and ultimately a lot of derelict vertical farms that have to be torn down and replaced.
You assume that the vertical farms are going to be able to sell produce for a lot less than the traditional farms can, but I assume that vertical farms would already be popular (in cities and in the country) if they offered farmers a better way to grow crops and make a buck.
posted by pracowity at 3:39 AM on August 11, 2010 [5 favorites]
Unprofitability, failure, and ultimately a lot of derelict vertical farms that have to be torn down and replaced.
You assume that the vertical farms are going to be able to sell produce for a lot less than the traditional farms can, but I assume that vertical farms would already be popular (in cities and in the country) if they offered farmers a better way to grow crops and make a buck.
posted by pracowity at 3:39 AM on August 11, 2010 [5 favorites]
' these kinds of crops make up such a small percentage of our agricultural production '
Well of course they do when they're still being installed, that goes without saying for every new/slow progressing technology.
Geothermal project do not fail if contructed properly, not to mention the fact that there has been countless time of oil wells fractuing the ground, more so b far than any geothermal projects.
You want to save they dying schools and golf courses..... why? Are you the kind of person who hates renewables without even trying to open up to them? Or is there a specific reason why you don't think the farm is a good idea?
posted by sockpim at 4:03 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Well of course they do when they're still being installed, that goes without saying for every new/slow progressing technology.
Geothermal project do not fail if contructed properly, not to mention the fact that there has been countless time of oil wells fractuing the ground, more so b far than any geothermal projects.
You want to save they dying schools and golf courses..... why? Are you the kind of person who hates renewables without even trying to open up to them? Or is there a specific reason why you don't think the farm is a good idea?
posted by sockpim at 4:03 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
What pracowity said. If this was a great idea, you'd see it being done -- maybe as small scale, backyard experiments, or with big venture capital. You could think of this as answering a question no one is asking, which is something like "how could you do agriculture in an endless city with no farmland and with easy and cheap access to renewable energy?" That's an interesting hypothetical, but it isn't the world we live in.
Assuming the vertical farm is built on a site previously a church or school just across the street or within walking distance from the local grocery store, it would be pretty inefficient to delivery the goods over. It would make more sense to have a store on the first floor of the vertical farm selling the goods directly to the public, no?
Right now I can walk into the local supermarket and buy produce from Chile, New Zealand, and a bunch of other countries. Until the cost of petroleum gets up to a rational level, it will continue to make economic sense to transport fruit and vegies across the country and around the world.
posted by Forktine at 5:34 AM on August 11, 2010
Assuming the vertical farm is built on a site previously a church or school just across the street or within walking distance from the local grocery store, it would be pretty inefficient to delivery the goods over. It would make more sense to have a store on the first floor of the vertical farm selling the goods directly to the public, no?
Right now I can walk into the local supermarket and buy produce from Chile, New Zealand, and a bunch of other countries. Until the cost of petroleum gets up to a rational level, it will continue to make economic sense to transport fruit and vegies across the country and around the world.
posted by Forktine at 5:34 AM on August 11, 2010
Right now I can walk into the local supermarket and buy produce from Chile, New Zealand, and a bunch of other countries. Until the cost of petroleum gets up to a rational level, it will continue to make economic sense to transport fruit and vegies across the country and around the world.
But not ecological sense -- the real costs of that cheap food system will be paid by all of us (not to mention our children/grandchildren) in repairing a degraded environment.
posted by ecourbanist at 6:28 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
But not ecological sense -- the real costs of that cheap food system will be paid by all of us (not to mention our children/grandchildren) in repairing a degraded environment.
posted by ecourbanist at 6:28 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Look into a concept called Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) for formal academic study of this issue. LCA attempts to include all the externalities to derive a true "cost" in terms of required inputs and expected emissions.
One of the ones that the public and press always forget is water intensity. These things are going to be huge water sucks: plants transpire a lot. Where is that clean water going to come from? Where does the contaminated run-off water go?
What about fertilizer (manure) management? What about phosphorus management? Did you know that one of the biggest problems facing corn producers is a nickel waste-water stream?
These are the sorts of questions that LCA tries to answer. It's far too big a topic to really even touch on here, but that should get you started on your googlage.
posted by bonehead at 6:56 AM on August 11, 2010
One of the ones that the public and press always forget is water intensity. These things are going to be huge water sucks: plants transpire a lot. Where is that clean water going to come from? Where does the contaminated run-off water go?
What about fertilizer (manure) management? What about phosphorus management? Did you know that one of the biggest problems facing corn producers is a nickel waste-water stream?
These are the sorts of questions that LCA tries to answer. It's far too big a topic to really even touch on here, but that should get you started on your googlage.
posted by bonehead at 6:56 AM on August 11, 2010
But not ecological sense
Farming is a profession, not a hobby. Farmers are not against long-term environmental protection, but they certainly will not put their own farms out of business by using methods that put them at a competitive disadvantage to other farmers.
If you want farmers to change their behavior and operate vertical urban farms (to return to the topic at hand) even if they aren't as profitable as traditional farms, you'll have to convince them (with subsidies, tariffs, fines, fees, taxes, etc.) or force them (for example, mandate that only produce grown in the city can be sold in the city). Otherwise, the more profitable farms employing traditional methods will run the vertical farms out of business.
So another one of the "not-so-obvious problems that may occur if a major city replaced dying schools/golf courses/churches with multi-leveled solar/geothermal powered hydroponic vertical farms" might be this: if the practice is not at least as profitable as traditional methods, you will have to use carrots and sticks to get farmers to go along with it. This could drive local prices up while reducing the local variety and availability of produce.
posted by pracowity at 7:01 AM on August 11, 2010
Farming is a profession, not a hobby. Farmers are not against long-term environmental protection, but they certainly will not put their own farms out of business by using methods that put them at a competitive disadvantage to other farmers.
If you want farmers to change their behavior and operate vertical urban farms (to return to the topic at hand) even if they aren't as profitable as traditional farms, you'll have to convince them (with subsidies, tariffs, fines, fees, taxes, etc.) or force them (for example, mandate that only produce grown in the city can be sold in the city). Otherwise, the more profitable farms employing traditional methods will run the vertical farms out of business.
So another one of the "not-so-obvious problems that may occur if a major city replaced dying schools/golf courses/churches with multi-leveled solar/geothermal powered hydroponic vertical farms" might be this: if the practice is not at least as profitable as traditional methods, you will have to use carrots and sticks to get farmers to go along with it. This could drive local prices up while reducing the local variety and availability of produce.
posted by pracowity at 7:01 AM on August 11, 2010
But not ecological sense -- the real costs of that cheap food system will be paid by all of us (not to mention our children/grandchildren) in repairing a degraded environment.
Of course. But until you internalize that externality, either through legislation, taxation, or just more expensive gas, it will continue to be cheaper to import some produce at some times of the year from the other side of the country or world than to grow in locally, especially in fantastically expensive and probably rather problematic vertical farms. If gas goes to $50/gallon, all kinds of things that right now are pie-in-the-sky goofy will start making sense. Until then, they won't.
posted by Forktine at 7:01 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Of course. But until you internalize that externality, either through legislation, taxation, or just more expensive gas, it will continue to be cheaper to import some produce at some times of the year from the other side of the country or world than to grow in locally, especially in fantastically expensive and probably rather problematic vertical farms. If gas goes to $50/gallon, all kinds of things that right now are pie-in-the-sky goofy will start making sense. Until then, they won't.
posted by Forktine at 7:01 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Places that grow crops using solar power already exist, they are called "farms." Seriously though, it takes a lot of energy and resources to grow and harvest crops efficiently, and as others have said if it was more efficient to grow crops with hydroponics rather than traditional farming then that's what farmers everywhere would already be doing. The plan seems to be dodging the non-green aspect of using a ton of energy for a less efficient farming method by adding green power sources, but I seriously doubt that would actually work in practice (otherwise we could just use green power for everything).
A much less crazy plan would be buy good farmland in a cheap rural area, and use solar power or other green energy methods to run a traditional farm and transport the crops to cities. If vertical farming in cities is just supposed to be neat or impressive like a botanical garden, then the plan makes sense, but as an actual practical method of providing food to people I don't think it would work at all.
posted by burnmp3s at 8:01 AM on August 11, 2010
A much less crazy plan would be buy good farmland in a cheap rural area, and use solar power or other green energy methods to run a traditional farm and transport the crops to cities. If vertical farming in cities is just supposed to be neat or impressive like a botanical garden, then the plan makes sense, but as an actual practical method of providing food to people I don't think it would work at all.
posted by burnmp3s at 8:01 AM on August 11, 2010
Even in apocalyptic $50 gas scenarios, I simply cannot see vertical farming becoming viable (for one, we'd find something else to power our conveyances of transport -- nuclear-powered electric trains and trams put a ceiling on how expensive transportation can get).
Given that such a scenario would drive people into dense urban cores, we'd be able to reclaim the suburbs for farmland.
Building vertical requires lots of energy and materials, and vertical farms would also likely consume a fair amount of energy for lighting and heating. I can't help but think that those materials would be put to better use by making better use of existing land near cities.
posted by schmod at 8:02 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Given that such a scenario would drive people into dense urban cores, we'd be able to reclaim the suburbs for farmland.
Building vertical requires lots of energy and materials, and vertical farms would also likely consume a fair amount of energy for lighting and heating. I can't help but think that those materials would be put to better use by making better use of existing land near cities.
posted by schmod at 8:02 AM on August 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
On post (previews are for whimps): What burnmp3s said. It's a silly futuristic idea to solve a problem that has numerous more practical low-tech solutions.
posted by schmod at 8:16 AM on August 11, 2010
posted by schmod at 8:16 AM on August 11, 2010
I had to google this so I could figure out what vertical farms are. Found this to be interesting:
verticalfarm.com
They have a paper with plans and cost estimates; their annual budget is for selling heads of lettuce at $1.90. In season, I buy heads of lettuce for much less than that. So, while I like the whole concept, I think I am falling in the camp of folks who think it's probably not financially viable.
I didn't find anything in that site that talks about the problems specifically; it seems very "happy path" oriented.
posted by CathyG at 11:15 AM on August 11, 2010
verticalfarm.com
They have a paper with plans and cost estimates; their annual budget is for selling heads of lettuce at $1.90. In season, I buy heads of lettuce for much less than that. So, while I like the whole concept, I think I am falling in the camp of folks who think it's probably not financially viable.
I didn't find anything in that site that talks about the problems specifically; it seems very "happy path" oriented.
posted by CathyG at 11:15 AM on August 11, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by MuffinMan at 2:21 AM on August 11, 2010