The inside of a skyscraper is, literally, the most expensive "land" in the world. So it probably isn't the best place to grow our food.
The idea of vertical farming (growing food in high-rise buildings in the middle of cities instead of out on farms) has been gaining a lot of interest lately. Most recetly, it showed up on BoingBoing, one of our favorite blogs. We've seen a few of these proposals, and we've been following the concept for some time. It seems EcoGeeky enough, but a quick glance at the actual economics of farming shows that this isn't ever going to work.
At first, it seems to make all the sense in the world. Moving production of food into population centers to eliminate shipping. Creating highly efficient "food factories" that allow land elsewhere to be freed from cultivation. But when you look at some of the practicalities behind constructing buildings like these, vertical farms make no sense. As the Vertical farm Project itself notes: "The Vertical Farm must be efficient (cheap to construct and safe to operate)." And a vertical farm is the opposite of efficiency.
A farmer can expect his land to be worth roughly $1 per square foot...if it's good, fertile land. The owner of a skyscraper, on the other hand, can expect to pay more than 200 times that per square foot of his building. And that's just the cost of construction. Factor in the costs of electricity to pump water throughout the thing and keep the plants bathed in artificial sunlight all day, and you've got an inefficient mess.
Just looking at those numbers, you need two things to happen in order for vertical farms to make sense. You need the price of food to increase 100 fold over today's prices, and you need the productivity of vertical farms to increase 100 fold over traditional farms. Neither of those things will ever happen. And as much as I hate to burst bubbles, the main claim to the efficiency of vertical farms (the elimination of transportation costs) is not vaild. Even if most of the calories we consume were to be grown inside of cities, almost all of it would be shipped out for processing (most of the food we eat isn't fresh veggies...you may have noticed.)
None of this is to say that we think farming will remain forever as it is today. EcoGeek is glad that there are many changes coming to agriculture, some of which will increase yields enough to keep prices low while feeding the 10 billion people the Earth will house by 2050. And with the right technologies, we should be able to do this without harming the Earth too much.
We're not even saying that farms will remain outside. Building multi-level (not necessarily muti-story) automated farming units on inexpensive land within 100 km of food processing plants, for example, might make a lot of sense. But if you're going to make farming more efficient, you aren't going to do it by moving it into the most expensive land in the world.
Science-fiction author (and former EcoGeek of the Week interviewee) Tobias Buckell also saw the article and offered his own comments on the topic, as well.
'Vertical farm' articles on EcoGeek
Hits: 6905
Comments (46)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Corban, October 26, 2009
The reason why using food for fuel doesn't make sense is because you're taking a valuable input to make a slightly more valuable output...but for great cost. In comparison, using shavings for fuel would make more sense. By the same token, instead of setting aside city land to grow farms, in the future we may grow food on rooftops. Granted, there's a weight issue, but they're not be used for much right now; that land has no opportunity cost.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Hanksug, October 26, 2009
There is, actually, a cost to putting a farm on a roof, and it's not cheap. Getting the dirt up there, having a safe way to reach the roof regularly, installing irrigation, getting the soil up there in the first place, maintaining the roof, etc.
-
- +0
-
-
written by tchamp, October 26, 2009
Lets see, 1 acre is 43,560 square feet. That makes $43,560 per acre, which is off by a factor of almost exactly 10. Good, fertile farm land is about $4-5,000 per acre. The biggest problem I can think of is labor. Farmers use huge tractors and whatnot to work the land. Doing in a building would require individuals to plant and harvest each and every plant, instead of using a tractor. Big problem.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Andrew, October 26, 2009
It is a very good point that vertical farms can't feed the cities efficiently. However I think that the nitch for vertical farms not commodity crops, I whole-heartedly agree that makes no sense. Rather it is with high value horticultural crops, particularly those that don't ship well or require refrigerated shipping where the advantages become realistic. I'm talking about tender greens, day neutral strawberries, things where freshness and quality really matter, luxury crops.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Teko, October 26, 2009
Having plant life on the south side and the roof top of a building can help to insulate against heat, and produce clean oxygen while at it. Can't the roof top be used to capture rain water? which would lessen the need to pump some of the water to the top. Perhaps large scale operation isn't practical right now, but I think there's benefit in having plant life be integrated into high rise bldgs.
-
- +4
-
-
written by Stevon Roberts, October 26, 2009
There are some valid challenges presented here, but I take issue with one false assumption: that the interior of the building space must be filled with plants. This is, of course, impractical because they'd have no access to natural sunlight (as indicated). Many of the z-scale farm designs I've seen do not fill the interior of the building space, rather they line the perimeter walls, or maybe the roof--that is the point, after all--reducing the planar footprint of the operation and converting it to a vertical space, freeing up the horizontal space for copiers and cubicles (or whatever). Also, the water pumping issue has already been solved by the plants and trees themselves: you can take advantage of water's wicking properties and capillary action by scaling down the tubing and leveraging the same processes that trees use to get water to their highest boughs.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Jaime, October 26, 2009
So, basically, food grown this way is going to be even MORE expensive to the public, in order to cover the cost of renting building space?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Amy, October 26, 2009
There are a lot of empty office buildings in downtown Seattle right now. I'd assume the going rate for that type of space is getting really cheap! (Not to say that I think they will start filling up with farms... but any assumptions about how expensive "office space" is can change quickly depending on circumstances.)
-
- +1
-
-
written by Elijah, October 27, 2009
The south facing wall of a skyscraper has a huge amount of insolent (sun receiving) area compared to the roof which is the equivalent area of a farm.
I don't see it being fiscally solvent without renting out the other 90%+ of the building in office space..
But green roofs and walls serve huge benefits in temperature control and air purification. Who wouldn't want to work in that office.
Is a green wall a kind of vertical farm? or visa versa ?
I don't see it being fiscally solvent without renting out the other 90%+ of the building in office space..
But green roofs and walls serve huge benefits in temperature control and air purification. Who wouldn't want to work in that office.
Is a green wall a kind of vertical farm? or visa versa ?
-
- +1
-
-
written by Gorper, October 27, 2009
The pseudo science is hilarious. Here we have a 'web journalist' citing a science fiction writer to bolster an opinion.
-
- -3
-
-
written by sarah, October 27, 2009
Farm the sewers. This is real city real estate that is not competing with too many people for office or living space. You would just need lights and maybe some mirrors or magnifying lenses. There is already scads of fertilizer there(a hydroponic sludge), and water, and it's climate controlled never getting too cold and electricity hookups already run through a lot of it. The plants may even clean the water (a boyfriend's uncle once gave me the tour where he worked treating dairy waste water by running it through vats of tropical plants before letting it out of the factory). No it wouldn't be organic coming all most entirely from waste water. I wouldn't eat the lettuce 
but lots of stuff is grown in fertilizer and manure...and maybe something useful to cities could be grown there... perhaps biomass? then it wouldn't fight for farmland.
but lots of stuff is grown in fertilizer and manure...and maybe something useful to cities could be grown there... perhaps biomass? then it wouldn't fight for farmland.
-
- -2
-
-
written by Jacob, October 27, 2009
First of all, yields in order of magnitude better than conventional farms are not unheard of, especially when you're dealing with something like a hydroponic system or even an aeroponic system. Secondly, growing fresh produce that does not need to be treated or processed is fairly straightforward if its just tomatoes or lettuce that get delivered via courier straight to a restaurant kitchen or supermarket. Unused or marginal space, such as rooftops of industrial or office blocks would not be expensive, and if the farm was automated, like Valcent Products' automated urban farm, then the labour required would be minimal.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Hank, October 27, 2009
While "web journalists" citing "science fiction writers" certainly isn't the way journalism generally gets done, it's a heck of a lot better than Popular Science or even The New York Times writing stories about vertical farms without even stopping to consider the economies involved and the assumptions made by people promoting these technologies.
They're writing about it because it's sensational and interesting and there are lots of pretty pictures. And that's the end of it.
I think what I'm doing is better than that, if only because I'm trying to present you with some details and don't claim to be the beginning and end of factual information.
They're writing about it because it's sensational and interesting and there are lots of pretty pictures. And that's the end of it.
I think what I'm doing is better than that, if only because I'm trying to present you with some details and don't claim to be the beginning and end of factual information.
-
- +3
-
-
written by Doc Rings, October 27, 2009
Great article, and you're right, besides all the pretty engineer drawings of the utopian urban design, there is *never* any discussion or input by economists on *any* of these "great new inventions".
Keep going, Hank!
Keep going, Hank!
-
- +0
-
-
written by valves supplier, October 27, 2009
At first, if I have a farms like this,keep clear is my best thing,because it looks so beautiful from the picture.I only have a valves manufacturer.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Free ringtones, October 27, 2009
But when you look at some of the practicalities behind constructing buildings like these, vertical farms make no sense.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Jeneva, October 27, 2009
I agree with those who have suggested that the answer is not to build skyscrapers specifically to become vertical farms, but to use wasted space on otherwise occupied buildings to grow plants, especially aeroponically (without the need for heavy quantities of soil or water). Heck, even if the plants covering the roof and south wall of a skyscraper weren't food plants, they would still confer a benefit in terms of environmental effects: temperature mitigation, pollutant filtration, etc. I also agree that the most cost-effective crop-growing purpose would be the easily-perishable luxury crops that are often used fresh and have to be shipped by air to their destinations, like strawberries, or those which are typically picked green so they'll survive the journey and therefore aren't worth eating once they arrive, like tomatoes.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Joshua Scott, October 27, 2009
Wow, there are some great comments here! I have to say that the theme of the article is right on, even if some of the numbers are a little off. I have a business growing hydroponic lettuce in urban greenhouses to reduce transportation. But transportation is not the only issue here because that only contributes anywhere between 10-25% of the actually energy input per plant (no cite, these are from my calculations from research). Plus, transportation accounts for about 25% of the cost of the plant to the consumer (only for lettuce, from the USDA). The rest is packaging, processing, refrigeration, etc. So vertical farming only takes into account the transportation, which as this author so astutely realizes, is not enough to make up for the total increase in energy usage. The other factors that can be argued, such as food security and land usage, can be easily answered by more evolutionary hydroponic technologies that leverage automation to increase efficiency. Flat, meaning ground level, hydroponics that use sustainable nutrient supplies can use just about any land available regardless of soil quality. If you integrate green energy sources into the equation, you'll be able to reach far higher levels of efficiency than traditional farming while reducing transport.
That's my two cents, from someone whose business relies upon it
That's my two cents, from someone whose business relies upon it
-
- +6
-
-
written by Carl Hage, October 27, 2009
The current issue of Scientific American has an article by the originator of Vertical Farming. I haven't studied the details, but this seems like the perpetual motion machines.
A one layer farm uses daylight for solar energy-- to grow vertically electric lights are required. In the article, they propose burning crop residue to generate the electricity for the lights (and excess for city), but since plants are very inefficient in energy conversion, much more energy would be required for electric lights than what could be recycled from biomass.
A one layer farm uses daylight for solar energy-- to grow vertically electric lights are required. In the article, they propose burning crop residue to generate the electricity for the lights (and excess for city), but since plants are very inefficient in energy conversion, much more energy would be required for electric lights than what could be recycled from biomass.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Jolly Giant, October 28, 2009
Jack had the right idea when he sold that damn cow and planted a giant beanstalk.
I'm looking for a transmission tower to plant next years string beans.
I'm looking for a transmission tower to plant next years string beans.
-
- -2
-
-
written by vestar, October 28, 2009
we are so selfish when it comes to cost. nobody thought about how much land it could free up for nature. a 10 story building for 10 farmers would free up land for other 9 farmers for nature. In the long run this idea is effective.
And according to my calculation the yeild is 10 times which could help
And according to my calculation the yeild is 10 times which could help
-
- +1
-
-
written by Movie-Trailer.com, October 28, 2009
Sad conclusion... But hope may come from space: if we want to send people to Mars they may have to grow their own food. That research may be reused in vertical farms hopefully!
-
- +2
-
-
written by Green Ninja, October 28, 2009
There's no doubt that the food demands of our nation our increasing out of control and causing us to put magnitudes of stress on the already "tired" land. However, the concept of vertical farming is one worth looking into if we are planning on solving our future food problems. While it may not make sense inside of buildings, it does make sense in rural areas and farm land where the infrastructure is already available to support things like wide spread irrigation.
This will not be the ONLY answer, as people in urban centers will inevitably have to adopt self-sustainable gardens in some fashion or another in order to supplement their needs in a practical way. The system isn't perfect yet, but we're getting there, slowly but surely.
This will not be the ONLY answer, as people in urban centers will inevitably have to adopt self-sustainable gardens in some fashion or another in order to supplement their needs in a practical way. The system isn't perfect yet, but we're getting there, slowly but surely.
-
- +0
-
-
written by stefan malner, October 28, 2009
This may be a possible solution to lighting (tech may not be there yet, but in the future...)
see video: Hybrid Solar Lighting System Employing Fiber Optic Cables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBsmkHcFd3I
There are more videos on youtube, but this was the first I found.
see video: Hybrid Solar Lighting System Employing Fiber Optic Cables
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBsmkHcFd3I
There are more videos on youtube, but this was the first I found.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Michaelc, November 01, 2009
"a quick glance at the actual economics of farming shows that this isn't ever going to work."
There are already several urban projects doing hydroponic and aquaponic (combined fish and crop) greenhouses on the tops of buildings and on piers and they are quite profitable.
Of course you could do these same type of projects in the less expensive real estate outside of the city, but the comparison of conventional farming vs hydroponics shows hydroponics uses less energy, land, water, fertilizer, insecticide, and creates less chemical runoff and less opportunity for contamination.
There are already several urban projects doing hydroponic and aquaponic (combined fish and crop) greenhouses on the tops of buildings and on piers and they are quite profitable.
Of course you could do these same type of projects in the less expensive real estate outside of the city, but the comparison of conventional farming vs hydroponics shows hydroponics uses less energy, land, water, fertilizer, insecticide, and creates less chemical runoff and less opportunity for contamination.
-
- +1
-
-
written by octopod, November 01, 2009
Was anyone ever talking about farming INSIDE skyscrapers? I don't think the external square-foot price is the same as the habitable floorspace inside. Is this just a mistake or did you just not state some of your assumptions?
-
- +0
-
-
written by true religion jeans on sale, November 03, 2009
Cool website, like what I have read. Will definitely be back to read again.
-
- +0
-
-
written by RJ, November 05, 2009
On the one hand: Land is precious. Building suburbs, freeways and mega-malls on good farmland near cities is criminal, but common practice. Clearing rainforests to create marginal farmland so produce once made on good farmland near cities can be shipped around the world is insane, but common practice.
On the other hand: The cost of building skyscrapers is huge. The cost of running them is huge. Few people have begun to grapple with the cost of replacing them when they reach their use-by dates, but it will be huge.
None-the-less, skyscrapers are spectacular. People with more money than sense (and people who have easy access to other people’s money) love them. The images of immense vertical gardens are spectacular. Ditto.
So where does that lead us? Nowhere. At least in most western countries, building skyscrapers is not an alternative to sprawling suburbs; they are conjoined twins. Vertical gardens are the companions, not the replacements, for the parking lots around the mega-malls. This vertical garden fad is almost as much help as contemplating Paris Hilton’s reading habits would be for planning a Sunday dinner. Go for it Hank. Pull the plug.
Clusters of skyscrapers surrounded by vast low-density suburbs are not the only option for urban development. The media may believe that manufacturing big sparkling celebrities surrounding by masses of tiny dull admirers is the best way to entertain people, but it is not the model for sustainable cities.
On the other hand: The cost of building skyscrapers is huge. The cost of running them is huge. Few people have begun to grapple with the cost of replacing them when they reach their use-by dates, but it will be huge.
None-the-less, skyscrapers are spectacular. People with more money than sense (and people who have easy access to other people’s money) love them. The images of immense vertical gardens are spectacular. Ditto.
So where does that lead us? Nowhere. At least in most western countries, building skyscrapers is not an alternative to sprawling suburbs; they are conjoined twins. Vertical gardens are the companions, not the replacements, for the parking lots around the mega-malls. This vertical garden fad is almost as much help as contemplating Paris Hilton’s reading habits would be for planning a Sunday dinner. Go for it Hank. Pull the plug.
Clusters of skyscrapers surrounded by vast low-density suburbs are not the only option for urban development. The media may believe that manufacturing big sparkling celebrities surrounding by masses of tiny dull admirers is the best way to entertain people, but it is not the model for sustainable cities.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Derrick Gibson, November 05, 2009
And neither are cities - so how about we focus on the marginal benefit of vertical farming, as opposed to pooh-poohing the whole concept before it ever gets started?
Attempts to transform human kind into some sort of benevolent force for world peace, are as likely to fail as every other utopian concept ever tried; attempts to figure out how to make what people are already doing just a little bit better, well - we call that progress.
People live in cities; people like living in cities. People eat veggies; people like eating veggies. It doesn't seem like an impossible goal to figure out ways to put the people and the veggies closer together.
Attempts to transform human kind into some sort of benevolent force for world peace, are as likely to fail as every other utopian concept ever tried; attempts to figure out how to make what people are already doing just a little bit better, well - we call that progress.
People live in cities; people like living in cities. People eat veggies; people like eating veggies. It doesn't seem like an impossible goal to figure out ways to put the people and the veggies closer together.
-
- +1
-
-
written by kathy puder, November 05, 2009
Vertical farms may not be effective for you but vertical farms do make sense to countries like Singapore that have to import 98% of there food. Yes,
some methods to this type of farming is costly but
you have to look at all the variables before you deduce
that something does or does not make sense. Dynoponic
farming grows food WITHOUT using water. That eliminates
one variable. Hydroponic farming does use water,but
you can use rain water collected from rain barrels to
water the plants which offers another sustainable alternative. You have to read and learn about green
technology almost daily to get insight into sustainable
living because it's ever advancing, so keep reading and
start broading your perspective because every community
is different and has different needs. It ALWAYS makes
sense to plant and smaller farms yield better produce
than bigger farms,anyway. Vertical Farming DOES make sense.
some methods to this type of farming is costly but
you have to look at all the variables before you deduce
that something does or does not make sense. Dynoponic
farming grows food WITHOUT using water. That eliminates
one variable. Hydroponic farming does use water,but
you can use rain water collected from rain barrels to
water the plants which offers another sustainable alternative. You have to read and learn about green
technology almost daily to get insight into sustainable
living because it's ever advancing, so keep reading and
start broading your perspective because every community
is different and has different needs. It ALWAYS makes
sense to plant and smaller farms yield better produce
than bigger farms,anyway. Vertical Farming DOES make sense.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Summer Fields, November 06, 2009
Like vestar mentioned, what happened to the idea of saving space? And like RJ began to say, thousands of acres of endangered forests and other habitats are cleared away to make room for farms. I personally don't care about how much it costs when we've got celeberties spending millions on fancy houses for themselves only. So as much as traditional farms are more attractive then these urban tech farms, we've really got to think about how things are really going to be like with 10 billion people.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bobby, November 06, 2009
Given that there are no sources for all this information that he is spewing, I will call bull$#!* on most of this. Yes, it will be more expensive. But look how much people pay for "Organic" food. People will pay the premium knowing its more environmentally friendly. Look at the market its going for, wealthy urban yuppies. The cost of the structure will be more than farm land but... We are Running out of that resource! The thing that is not mentioned here is that indoor farms can produce year round 24-7. And most proposed ideas use aeroponics (a form of hydroponics ) and not soil. So I am not sure about this talk of hauling soil onto roofs... but anyway Im sure the author is an expert and has many leather bound books and an office than smells of rich mahogany... and cow dung...
-
- +1
-
-
written by Kevin, November 06, 2009
I am always amazed at the comments on how something has to have monetary value for it to be worthy.I remember listening to a show on NPR and a guest stating making fresh water from saltwater would never be practical and dying of thirst is?We can keep fooling ourselves all we want but we all know that the relentless pursuit of greater profits year after year and the endless exploitation of our world will come to an end.One day and I hope I live to see it,humanity will live for things other than monetary gain.The philosophy of the pursuit of knowledge and the care for every living species on this world.Maybe just maybe someday.
-
- +1
-
-
written by kim holder, November 06, 2009
At $200 per square foot, the price of food would need to go up 2x, and production 100x - not 100x price and 100x production. That would be 10000x.
For that matter, the whole economic evaluation is silly. You don't calculate the profitability of a business based on the cost of constructing the building it will be in. The question for vertical farms is how much revenue they will generate per square foot versus the costs of production. Skyscrapers often rent for something like $30 or $40 per square foot. If you really must make a direct comparison, that's the number to look at.
This article was referred to on fastcompany, where i saw it and picked up on the bad math. There are a lot of good comments here that challenge the false argument and lack of detail of the article itself. It's like a lot of these blog magazines these days - the comments are smarter and have more information than the article. And yet we don't get paid.
For that matter, the whole economic evaluation is silly. You don't calculate the profitability of a business based on the cost of constructing the building it will be in. The question for vertical farms is how much revenue they will generate per square foot versus the costs of production. Skyscrapers often rent for something like $30 or $40 per square foot. If you really must make a direct comparison, that's the number to look at.
This article was referred to on fastcompany, where i saw it and picked up on the bad math. There are a lot of good comments here that challenge the false argument and lack of detail of the article itself. It's like a lot of these blog magazines these days - the comments are smarter and have more information than the article. And yet we don't get paid.
-
- +1
-
-
written by ryan, November 07, 2009
An interesting read, especially with the comments, but it seems like a bit of a straw man. Building a skyscraper specifically to grow staple crops doesn't seem likely or worthwhile, but incorporating food production along the south side of a building does seem like it could conceivably have enough benefits in a clever design. Also, the economics of development is more complicated than just price per square foot. If a city fast-tracked a development or agreed to allow a taller building with more units because several floors were going to be involved in food production, that seems like it could easily make an urban farming operation worthwhile for the developer. Similarly if the units sold or rented for more money because the farming aspect made the location seem more desirable, that too could make it economical.
And there are various crops that it is currently possible to grow indoors for profit. I'm pretty sure that it is already possible to rent space in a skyscraper and make money growing marijuana, orchids, and possibly other plants. Gourmet mushrooms are grown in retro-fitted warehouse space in urban areas; they seem like at least one food that could be profitably grown in a skyscraper. Maybe those are cherry-picked examples, but the point is that the idea of farming in a building can't be completely dismissed. The idea of vertical farming isn't just to eliminate fuel costs, but to also design a building as a system and find benefits from the vertical aspect.
And there are various crops that it is currently possible to grow indoors for profit. I'm pretty sure that it is already possible to rent space in a skyscraper and make money growing marijuana, orchids, and possibly other plants. Gourmet mushrooms are grown in retro-fitted warehouse space in urban areas; they seem like at least one food that could be profitably grown in a skyscraper. Maybe those are cherry-picked examples, but the point is that the idea of farming in a building can't be completely dismissed. The idea of vertical farming isn't just to eliminate fuel costs, but to also design a building as a system and find benefits from the vertical aspect.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Ted Marchildon, November 07, 2009
I have a design called the Omega Garden which is a rotary cylinder with the lighting running down the center with the plants rotating around it. It is far more efficient then green housing, and they can go on the streets of many neighborhoods. It can be done as a non-profit co-op with the average consumer benefiting instead of large corps. See more details at www.yougrew.com
-
- +1
-
-
written by Sustainable Living, November 12, 2009
It could work if we installed them just outside the facade of high rise buildings, and parking structures, rooftops, etc. It would definitely have to be small time operations- nothing like modern day farm operations- more like backyard gardens. Maybe we should just push ertical gardens http://www.thechicecologist.co...sts-oh-my/ instead?
-
- +0
-
-
written by kefir, November 12, 2009
totally agree with you there. Vertical farms are just ridiculous. It's not like we're running out of land to build on, it's just that we're not utilizing the land that we have efficiently. And no, this does not mean we do vertical farming.
-
- +0
-
-
written by CH, November 13, 2009
First, let me say that I agree completely with this article.
Second, let me continue with the fact that many crops such as tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and strawberries are already grown vertically. (Not to mention profitably by many growers around the world.)
The biggest concerns should actually be availability of "good" water, qualified labor and quality light.
With good water, light, and labor. . .many locations become viable options for the production of food.
Second, let me continue with the fact that many crops such as tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and strawberries are already grown vertically. (Not to mention profitably by many growers around the world.)
The biggest concerns should actually be availability of "good" water, qualified labor and quality light.
With good water, light, and labor. . .many locations become viable options for the production of food.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Torsten Klasen, November 14, 2009
The article written by Philipp and Hank about the cost comparrison factors on vertical farming made complete sense to me. Indeed conventional building methods to erect vertical farms with concrete steel and wood, are too costly of a way to construct.
However if one was to find an alternative building solution, that would involve lower construction costs, it would make sense to investigate that option.
We have been building the same type of building envelope for many years and cannot change the most common denominator of the system "the labour". With labour costs as high as they are, and even climbing higher, it understandable that the cost of construction outways the benefits of the vertical farm.
We have been working on a solution to provide a vertical farm for the market for about 7 years, and are comming closer to the solution as each year passes.
Trying to feed 10 Billion people over by the year 2050 with abundant food and nutrients seems like a hard task, but it is possible to achieve.
Help us make a difference in the industry by joining us to cfreate a substainable future through vertical farming, either in the city or outside of it.
Cheers and take care.
Torsten Klasen
lexCoat International Inc.
However if one was to find an alternative building solution, that would involve lower construction costs, it would make sense to investigate that option.
We have been building the same type of building envelope for many years and cannot change the most common denominator of the system "the labour". With labour costs as high as they are, and even climbing higher, it understandable that the cost of construction outways the benefits of the vertical farm.
We have been working on a solution to provide a vertical farm for the market for about 7 years, and are comming closer to the solution as each year passes.
Trying to feed 10 Billion people over by the year 2050 with abundant food and nutrients seems like a hard task, but it is possible to achieve.
Help us make a difference in the industry by joining us to cfreate a substainable future through vertical farming, either in the city or outside of it.
Cheers and take care.
Torsten Klasen
lexCoat International Inc.
-
- +0
-
-
written by otis, November 14, 2009
is the way of the future, but that doesn't mean it has to be inside skyscrapers, in the middle of cities. Vertical simply means growing UP, instead of OUT, and if we can't figure out how to do that effectively, we're going to have one hell of a time trying to feed 10 billion people. We're already not very good at feeding 6 billion.
An effective vertical farm will have to not only bring construction costs down, but it will also have to master energy consumption and self-sustainable technologies.
Hydroponics and aeroponics provide amazing crop yields, compared with traditional farming, and I don't think it will be long until we begin seeing giant leaps and bounds in this industry.
An effective vertical farm will have to not only bring construction costs down, but it will also have to master energy consumption and self-sustainable technologies.
Hydroponics and aeroponics provide amazing crop yields, compared with traditional farming, and I don't think it will be long until we begin seeing giant leaps and bounds in this industry.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Mandarin Chinese Online, November 17, 2009
I can see this kind of farm in China,too!
it's really cool!
and very health!
it's really cool!
and very health!
-
- +0
-
-
written by jose, November 17, 2009
In my humble opinion, farming done this way makes perfect sense...I found out more about it here...
-
- +1
-
-
written by gucci canvas wallets, November 21, 2009
The collection also includes styles that are suitale for business meetiings and everyday wear.Many of these styles are designed with leather and suede and can make quite an impression at the workplace.It is possible to find Gucci shoes discounted to make them more affordable if you take the time to search for some of these exclusive design.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| Next > |
|---|
OCT 26
" The collection also includes styles that are suitale for business me..."
View all Comments