Comments for An Off-Grid Vertical Farm for Downtown Seattle at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 48 out of 20 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:27:33 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-33172 Someone was wondering how they would have enough soil for VF, but if you actually look up more detailed designs for VFs, you will see that many of the crops will not need soil due to hyperponic growth. In this method of agriculture, soil is not needed. the plants are suspended in containers, and nutrient-rich water flows over their roots, supplying them with all the food they need. As far the the other concern about half of the building being shaded throughout the day,photovoltaics (solor power) would supply enrgy to the shaded portions - the solar panels would be located on the roof, where they would be under direct sunlight most of the day. Yes, it would require a lot of energy to power that many lights, but new advances in photovoltaics have made them highly efficient, and the power is almost level with the price of regular power - or will be soon enough. Another question someone asked was how the plants would have enough nutrients. Many designes propose the use of city greywater (sewage), which contains a lot of nutrients. The water would be evaporated, leaving behind the nutrients, and then it would be re-cooled and ppurified for use on the plants. So graywater would supply nutrients and[i][/i]water, and we would be able to recylcle our cities' waste. Anyone can argue that there are still flaws in the idea of VF (though I would not put the entire thing off as bogus, considering how many learned architects, agronomists, and urban designers have explored the idea), but this is why there are no VF farms yet - it's not a completely finished plan. Prototypes would be built and testd first - more experimentation is surely needed before we can decide whether vertical farming is right for our cities or not. It's not realistic to say we don't need it. If you consider how little arable land we have in proportion to the world's population, and how many crops are destroyed by natural disasters (which are increasing regularly due to global warming), is seems clear that we need a more reliable way to obtain more food. The world's population is predicted to reach 9.5 billion by 2050- I think we need to do something about our food problem (and more so, the food shortages in other countries) before then. The biggest problem I have with this idea is that no matter how you look at it, VF is expensive [i][/i], and it's likely to be for a long time. The countries that need food the most aren't exactly rich, and this country is economically instable and in a lot of debt anyways. For vertical farms to make a real impact, we would need a lot of them. I think it's a good idea, despite the flaws that have yet to be worked out, but I think that it will be a while before vertical farms truly "take root" - pardon the lame pun. - Thorny Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:58:01 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-32163 Anyone who's done hydroponics knows how ultra-productive a small space with proper setup and attention can be. I assume these vertical stacks also pump up the CO2 to 2000ppm or so to help growth (by about a factor of 4). Since global warming and the whole GH hypothesis is BS ( [url]http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4[/url] FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS ), we should of course, were it possible, do everything possible to bring the whole planet's atmosphere up to that level, too. :D;D - Brian H Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:32:03 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-31640 I love all the negative talking about the subject :-) Just shows who the people are that actually make new strides into efficiency through effort and failing but are trying, and those who are the ones who watch it all happen instead. Tesla and Edison were actually laughed at also... I love hearing the nay-sayers who keep thinking they're smarter without actually doing the work and research... most of the arguments are good, but I especially like seeing the disagreements that are based in opinion, it's hilarious. - Scott Newell Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:32:52 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-31219 The term "living building" comes from the idea that it is possible to create a structure that functions like a living organism - able to survive using only the natural environment around it. - wholesale from china Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:17:23 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-29884 Moving food back into cities just makes sense considering the impact of unnecessary "food miles" that most food travels from point of growth to our local supermarkets. Valcent has created a vertical farming system that uses 90-95% less water than conventional farming and can be set up in tight spaces (like cities) to provide local, fresh produce. It can be placed anywhere: warehouses, skyscrapers, and industrial sites included. There's lots of info on the Valcent blog about the system's first instillation at a UK zoo http://blog.valcent.net/?p=653 - Michaela Davies Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:16:46 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-28225 Hi, what companies can be invested in that promotes what you are doing? Georgine - Georgine Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:58:38 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-22312 www.a-green.cn - anyou Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:03:20 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-21360 This idea may work if it was more about "gutting" an existing building, renovating it with these ideas, than building an intentional community around it. Better to use an existing building, modify it, than you have a really green idea. - pgm98387 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:58:04 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-17137 As a Partner in an Architectural Firm with an actual vertical farm project on deck, I am surprised by the negativity and lack of understanding of Photovoltaics for electricity & the varieties of systems available to grow plants, not to mention the chance to treat black water created by the surrounding communities. Perhaps my colleagues visions may seem "more architecture and less farm" which makes them look like flights of fancy. Some of the ideas out there sound so technology forward that they seem like sci-fi and are not cost effective at this time, while many are so large that you wonder if it is the product of someone's ego and not their careful assessment of local needs and opportunities. For our project in New York City (where land is notoriously expensive,) the numbers make sense for a medium sized project. Which although may not feed the nation, it could provide fresh produce to surrounding communities where dietary staples available to rest of us are not available freshly or organically. In other words the focus is not on making a giant factory to feed humanity but instead to allow people who don't live near farms to have available a non-truck ripened vegetable. Be part of the solution: Our office actually grows tomatoes, cucumbers and 9 other vegetables on marginal space around a parking lot, making our lunches in the summer much more fun. FYI photovoltaic panels don't actually need sunlight, they need daylight and even in overcast grey days produce nearly as much as they produce under direct light. Also thermal solar panels used to replace your hot water heater now cost the same as installing a new hot water heater with it's plumbing and gas or electric connections, finally making this affordable for home owners. Technology is advancing so it is important to keep up to date instead of speculating. - Kevin Pellon Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:17:35 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-16823 I really want to see this project succeed because I think this is could be a solution to are rising food shortage…I am trying to get the first working tower built: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/vertical-farm-in-new-york-city - Stephen Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:37:30 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-14804 I urge everyone to visit Dr. Dickson Despommier's website www.verticalfarm.com and read all scientific/economic info about them BEFORE commenting. This prevents un-informed/speculative comments like that about soil or solar problems. Thanks ;) - Tom Mon, 16 Jun 2008 13:33:42 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-14658 All organic matter can be broken down by bacteria to produce natural gas. This can be done in a controlled environment. The organic matter would be human waste and food waste. The natural gas can be made into hydrogen, which creates CO2 for the plants to be saturated in. The hydrogen would power a fuel cell. - neubs Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:23:04 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-12684 Solar lighting with fiber optic cables is free. Fiber Optic cable has the possibility of lasting a lifetime and is constantly being improved. Length of cable shouldn't be a factor with so many 'sun faces'. UV can be filtered out or left in. Light cycles mimic outdoor light, brightest at midday, softer and warmer morning and evening. Water is recyclable and can be distilled with free solar energy. Solar energy is present even on cloudy days, and can be stored successfully from sunny days. A building this size would probably be selling power back to the grid. That pays for what's not produced off-grid, perhaps. With enough fiber optics, when the price comes down, this entire building might be able to exist underground. No shadow. - Linda Sue Sun, 04 May 2008 02:26:55 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-11609 A) these plants are indoors and that will provide better conditions, (no pests, no exhaust from the city) B) Electrically it won't be self sufficient if one it to assume they use lights to power the photosynthesis. C) I think water wise they could/might be self sufficient especially with Seattle's rainfall (plants transpire most of the water they take in,) D) Soil/labor is not used/needed. Most can be grown aeroponically (right word?) on trays that can be moved to a central 'machine' for automatic processing. Or a harvester the size of a floor sweeper can be used. - Bob Bobberson Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:12:17 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-11321 This project has some very interesting ideas. I would, however, like to see more publications on these exceptional ideas that list designers that are available to the average wage earner. Finding one to put these ideas down onto paper, planning and construction is not an easy task. As owner of a first generation passive solar home built along traditional home design has resulted in substantial energy savings and continues to work 22 years after construction. However, I would like to continue to apply state-of-the-art ideas to off-grid passive solar technology which would represent, I think, the ultimate challange in solar applications. As for food production I think I will let that up to the farmers. On the other hand, maintaining plants indoors does have its advantages in trading CO2 for O2 as well as providing estetics and a treat if one grows fruit indoors. - James D. Bonn, Sr. Tue, 25 Mar 2008 22:18:26 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-11318 Howdy, I am very interested in your program and was wondering if you were looking for employment. I am graduating from Warren Wilson College located in Asheville, NC with a degree in Biology and Environmental Studies. I have a lot of experience with growing vegetable, landscaping, and horticulture. I am passionate about urban farming and growing food. I could email you my resume. If you are not looking for employment is there any other contacts in the vertical farming world you could educate me with. Thanks for your time. Cheers, Shannon Waldron - Shannon Waldron Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:51:49 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-10898 Wow, I really wasn't expecting to see so many doubters. There seems to be many of you who are laboring under false pretenses about the amount of power and produce this building could produce. I have grown enough food for a family of four in a 6 x 6 space using a mixture of soil and hydroponics for about 5 years now with no problems. Takes about 25 hrs/wk of labor and costs approx. $115/mo in power to run. If I was able to have a space about 20x20 I would even be able to reclaim all the soil (right now I have to replenish it about twice a year). It does seem odd that they didn't even consider a vertical axis windmill or two, would help augment the electricity production and cut down on the amount of solar panels needed. As far as the amount of food produced- it seems that many people didn't take into account the multiple blooming seasons and the increased harvest from having controlled environments. This really will work...now they just need to realize they can put a biomass fuel production center, and algae tanks into each of these buildings. --Lighting: forget fiber-optics or large HPS/MH lamps...check out Luciant Techs new LED's. They only use 3-5 mW, are the size of a pinky nail, and produce the same amount of light as a 150 W Halogen...and they can be tuned to the exact red/blue frequency that plants need to grow (no wasted energy). -- Harvesting and farming labor--You got me on that one. Maybe we will have little modified Roomba's that will run around and harvest stuff. Could just rent 4 of the apartments to central american families. That would equal about 60 workers...I'm sorry. It might work as a equal share thing between tenets with agreed upon laborers taking up any slack. We will see these building in our lifetime, and many of them, for the simple reason that there is not enough land to support the continued population growth. It's easier than people think to grow plants in controlled environments,and large scale production is in some ways easier than growing those five plants in your college dorm-room closet. I am looking forward to living in a badly maintained, leaky, mid-cost one bedroom apartment that smells vaguely of decomposing plant matter and cut lawn. - bubulubba Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:08:43 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-10086 I applaud the creativity of the design. It is a response to the Living Building Challenge. The LBC requires many things to be provided for on site. I think the design is an excellent urban response to the Challenge, but some of the above criticisms are also quite appropriate. Perhaps the LBC's requirement that everything be provided for On-site isn't a very good idea. - kjell Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:34:54 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-9995 What's with all the negativity? You have to start somewhere and at least someone is acting rather than just talking. I commend everyone for great ideas, but do something about it and bring them forth, don't just jot them down as superior solutions in the comments section. - D Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:05:05 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/architecture/976#comment-8937 Check out the vertical farm planned for Las Vegas..!? - greengo Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:24:30 +0100