Vertical farming might work better if they are sited near supermarket distribution centers.
Tjgreen
· 1 year ago
This is designed for urban areas,but it could also work with the Sahara forest project.
Tom_Craver
· 1 year ago
I'm kind of skeptical of this idea, as proposed. It looks like they're in love with the "vertical" concept, and don't notice that for most places, it'd be much more rational to build wide and flatter on cheaper land. For most cities, that'd mean transporting the food only a few miles to high density, high-rise residential areas.
Also, that chart comparing conventional vs vertical farming is just strange - there's no scale, despite all the up-down implied comparisons. The ~5:1 ratio for energy is shown as larger than the 95:1 green-house gases ratio, while the 100:1 irrigation water ratio is only slightly larger than the 240:1 acreage ratio. The sensible way to graph this would have been to have the conventional production be flat at the top, and show the VF values in proportion.
Then there's the conspicuous absence of estimates of labor. I have no idea how they get $488M equipment costs for the equivalent of about 20 farms - 6136 acres of farmland is worth under $50M, and a 300 acre farm wouldn't have $20M of equipment.
And I have strong doubts about using black or gray water as a source of water and fertlizer - that's not going to be cheap, due to all the nasty chemicals people put into it. It'd be cheaper to collect and process rainwater run-off and store it - and far more sensible to divorce that function entirely from the VF. Sounds like they're trying to roll every possible ecological idea into one utopian solution.
All Comments
Also, that chart comparing conventional vs vertical farming is just strange - there's no scale, despite all the up-down implied comparisons. The ~5:1 ratio for energy is shown as larger than the 95:1 green-house gases ratio, while the 100:1 irrigation water ratio is only slightly larger than the 240:1 acreage ratio. The sensible way to graph this would have been to have the conventional production be flat at the top, and show the VF values in proportion.
Then there's the conspicuous absence of estimates of labor. I have no idea how they get $488M equipment costs for the equivalent of about 20 farms - 6136 acres of farmland is worth under $50M, and a 300 acre farm wouldn't have $20M of equipment.
And I have strong doubts about using black or gray water as a source of water and fertlizer - that's not going to be cheap, due to all the nasty chemicals people put into it. It'd be cheaper to collect and process rainwater run-off and store it - and far more sensible to divorce that function entirely from the VF. Sounds like they're trying to roll every possible ecological idea into one utopian solution.