The idea of vertical farming is all the rage right now. Architects and engineers have come up with spectacular concepts for lofty buildings that could function as urban food centers of the future.

The future of vertical farming, Mitchell thinks, lies not in city skyscrapers, but rather in large warehouses located in the suburbs, where real estate and electricity are cheaper.

And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps, he says these plant factories will probably be “pinkhouses,” glowing magenta from the mix of blue and red LEDs.

more

>And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps,

Bugger me, and here I was thinking all this time that a traditional greenhouse were lit by a large star located reasonably close to our planet.

You do learn something every day.

Yeah, nah.

sibeen said:

>And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps,

Bugger me, and here I was thinking all this time that a traditional greenhouse were lit by a large star located reasonably close to our planet.

You do learn something every day.

Makes me not want to read the article

sibeen said:

>And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps,

Bugger me, and here I was thinking all this time that a traditional greenhouse were lit by a large star located reasonably close to our planet.

You do learn something every day.

Plenty of greenhouses, especially in the higher latitudes, have supplemental lighting.

dv said:

sibeen said:

>And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps,

Bugger me, and here I was thinking all this time that a traditional greenhouse were lit by a large star located reasonably close to our planet.

You do learn something every day.

Makes me not want to read the article

Yes but your easily deterred.

sibeen said:

>And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps,

Bugger me, and here I was thinking all this time that a traditional greenhouse were lit by a large star located reasonably close to our planet.

You do learn something every day.

So we have two alternatives:

1.1 Convert EM energy from the Sun into thermal energy in the atmosphere and surface of the Earth.
1.2 Convert thermal energy into kinetic energy in the atmosphere, making use of pressure changes over large distances.
1.3 Convert kinetic energy in the atmosphere to kinetic energy in rotating wind turbine blades
1.4 Convert kinetic energy in rotating wind turbine blades into electrical energy
1.5 Transmit electrical energy from high wind area to good growing area
1.6 Convert electrical energy into EM energy
1.7 Grow plants

2.1 Use EM energy from the Sun directly to grow plants

I wonder which is more efficient.

would pink lighting effect the way bugs relate to the plants?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

would pink lighting effect the way bugs relate to the plants?

well, ‘relate to the plants’ is not well put, but I’m sure someone follows my meaning

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

>And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps,

Bugger me, and here I was thinking all this time that a traditional greenhouse were lit by a large star located reasonably close to our planet.

You do learn something every day.

So we have two alternatives:

1.1 Convert EM energy from the Sun into thermal energy in the atmosphere and surface of the Earth.
1.2 Convert thermal energy into kinetic energy in the atmosphere, making use of pressure changes over large distances.
1.3 Convert kinetic energy in the atmosphere to kinetic energy in rotating wind turbine blades
1.4 Convert kinetic energy in rotating wind turbine blades into electrical energy
1.5 Transmit electrical energy from high wind area to good growing area
1.6 Convert electrical energy into EM energy
1.7 Grow plants

2.1 Use EM energy from the Sun directly to grow plants

I wonder which is more efficient.

Number 2 is clearly more efficient. But number 1 lets you extend the time per day that plants receive usable light, and lets you compensate (to a degree) for dull days. Many flowering plants respond to changes in the day length, so by using artificial light greenhouse operators can manipulate the growth cycles of such plants.

The greater economy of this concept is the freeing up of land

That must be non traditional greenhouses, PM.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The greater economy of this concept is the freeing up of land

Economy?

I very much doubt it. There is quite a bit of land. Actually there may indeed be a surfeit of land.

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The greater economy of this concept is the freeing up of land

Economy?

I very much doubt it. There is quite a bit of land. Actually there may indeed be a surfeit of land.

And all of that is prime is it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

>And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps,

Bugger me, and here I was thinking all this time that a traditional greenhouse were lit by a large star located reasonably close to our planet.

You do learn something every day.

So we have two alternatives:

1.1 Convert EM energy from the Sun into thermal energy in the atmosphere and surface of the Earth.
1.2 Convert thermal energy into kinetic energy in the atmosphere, making use of pressure changes over large distances.
1.3 Convert kinetic energy in the atmosphere to kinetic energy in rotating wind turbine blades
1.4 Convert kinetic energy in rotating wind turbine blades into electrical energy
1.5 Transmit electrical energy from high wind area to good growing area
1.6 Convert electrical energy into EM energy
1.7 Grow plants

2.1 Use EM energy from the Sun directly to grow plants

I wonder which is more efficient.

But is efficiency important?
a) we get far more EM energy thrown at us every day than we can possibly use.
b) method 2 limits when and where it can be used
c) method 3 (solar panels) only has 2 sub points
d) Is 2.1 is one sub point, then 1.6+1.7 should be one sub point

As this is an urban development it would also minimise transportation and associated costs

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

The greater economy of this concept is the freeing up of land

Economy?

I very much doubt it. There is quite a bit of land. Actually there may indeed be a surfeit of land.

And all of that is prime is it?

Well, no; but if you are going to build a greenhouse I suspect that the land may not need to be prime.

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Economy?

I very much doubt it. There is quite a bit of land. Actually there may indeed be a surfeit of land.

And all of that is prime is it?

Well, no; but if you are going to build a greenhouse I suspect that the land may not need to be prime.

You can put a greenhouse in the desert but it won’t draw a population.

PM 2Ring said:

2.1 Use EM energy from the Sun directly to grow plants

I wonder which is more efficient.

Number 2 is clearly more efficient. But number 1 lets you extend the time per day that plants receive usable light, and lets you compensate (to a degree) for dull days. Many flowering plants respond to changes in the day length, so by using artificial light greenhouse operators can manipulate the growth cycles of such plants.

Yes, so there is some benefit in going the long way round in some circumstances, but a major shift from direct use of sunlight to use of electric light doesn’t seem to make sense.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PM 2Ring said:

2.1 Use EM energy from the Sun directly to grow plants

I wonder which is more efficient.

Number 2 is clearly more efficient. But number 1 lets you extend the time per day that plants receive usable light, and lets you compensate (to a degree) for dull days. Many flowering plants respond to changes in the day length, so by using artificial light greenhouse operators can manipulate the growth cycles of such plants.

Yes, so there is some benefit in going the long way round in some circumstances, but a major shift from direct use of sunlight to use of electric light doesn’t seem to make sense.

I’d assume there won’t be a single answer but tailor made solutions for every region

Wouldn’t this be popular in the UK with it’s particular geographical limitations?

dv said:

That must be non traditional greenhouses, PM.

Well, there are some greenhouses that operate entirely under artificial light for legal reasons. :)

Sure, artificial illumination in greenhouses is a relatively modern thing, but horticulturists have been doing it for decades. Plenty of commercial greenhouses, especially in the higher latitudes, utilise artificial light to extend &/or shift the growing season. This allows the production of fruit and flowers out of season. Even in temperate regions, flower producers rely on artificial light so that lucrative flower species are available when the demand is high, eg Valentines Day & Mothers Day.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PM 2Ring said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

2.1 Use EM energy from the Sun directly to grow plants

I wonder which is more efficient.

Number 2 is clearly more efficient. But number 1 lets you extend the time per day that plants receive usable light, and lets you compensate (to a degree) for dull days. Many flowering plants respond to changes in the day length, so by using artificial light greenhouse operators can manipulate the growth cycles of such plants.

Yes, so there is some benefit in going the long way round in some circumstances, but a major shift from direct use of sunlight to use of electric light doesn’t seem to make sense.

Agreed; it makes sense to use whatever sunlight you can get. OTOH, artificial light allows more efficient use of space for greenhouses situated in densely populated areas.

Also, plants don’t need all the frequencies present in sunlight – the various types of chlorophyll have fairly narrow absorption spectra, so if you can efficiently convert sunlight to electricity and then illuminate the plants with LEDs of the right frequencies, it could end up being more efficient than traditional solar illumination. However, I don’t think that solar panels are that efficient as yet. But the LEDs probably are.

I can see lots of benefits from greener (as in plants) cities, but for farming no so much. Though it would be good to see roofs and appropriate sides of buildings seeded with those tough succulents and alpine plants. Cools buildings and adds a bit of nature.

To get better bang for farming bank place houses on places that are not that good for crops anyway. But unfortunately human development relies on water and over time the most fertile and best spots to plant crops get houses built on them.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

As this is an urban development it would also minimise transportation and associated costs

Yes, that’s one of the benefits touted by proponents of urban greenhouse systems. The savings could be significant if you’re in the middle of a giant urban sprawl, a long way away from the farming regions.

I could see this sort of thing going big in NY. Commercially and privately

Riff-in-Thyme said:

I could see this sort of thing going big in NY. Commercially and privately

They’d do it just to be trendsetters

PM 2Ring said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

As this is an urban development it would also minimise transportation and associated costs

Yes, that’s one of the benefits touted by proponents of urban greenhouse systems. The savings could be significant if you’re in the middle of a giant urban sprawl, a long way away from the farming regions.

I thought that the studies on ‘buy local’ had basically rubbished the idea.

sibeen said:

PM 2Ring said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

As this is an urban development it would also minimise transportation and associated costs

Yes, that’s one of the benefits touted by proponents of urban greenhouse systems. The savings could be significant if you’re in the middle of a giant urban sprawl, a long way away from the farming regions.

I thought that the studies on ‘buy local’ had basically rubbished the idea.

Yes I was reading those for a while. Natural advantages where the foodstuff was grown naturally meant a more efficient total life not usually beaten by food miles which don’t mean much when you use a ships worth which can be grown easily and transported efficiently which results in a lower energy footprint.

I guess the main thing is:

What is the point of urban farming?

Skunkworks said:

sibeen said:

PM 2Ring said:

Yes, that’s one of the benefits touted by proponents of urban greenhouse systems. The savings could be significant if you’re in the middle of a giant urban sprawl, a long way away from the farming regions.

I thought that the studies on ‘buy local’ had basically rubbished the idea.

Yes I was reading those for a while. Natural advantages where the foodstuff was grown naturally meant a more efficient total life not usually beaten by food miles which don’t mean much when you use a ships worth which can be grown easily and transported efficiently which results in a lower energy footprint.

when were those studies done?

Skunkworks said:

sibeen said:

PM 2Ring said:

Yes, that’s one of the benefits touted by proponents of urban greenhouse systems. The savings could be significant if you’re in the middle of a giant urban sprawl, a long way away from the farming regions.

I thought that the studies on ‘buy local’ had basically rubbished the idea.

Yes I was reading those for a while. Natural advantages where the foodstuff was grown naturally meant a more efficient total life not usually beaten by food miles which don’t mean much when you use a ships worth which can be grown easily and transported efficiently which results in a lower energy footprint.

when were those studies done?

dv said:

I guess the main thing is:

What is the point of urban farming?

doesn’t the answer depend on where in the world you are asking the question?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

dv said:

I guess the main thing is:

What is the point of urban farming?

doesn’t the answer depend on where in the world you are asking the question?

NY might be likely to find political reasons to invest in it. It probably wouldn’t replace farming but supplement various things

sibeen said:

PM 2Ring said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

As this is an urban development it would also minimise transportation and associated costs

Yes, that’s one of the benefits touted by proponents of urban greenhouse systems. The savings could be significant if you’re in the middle of a giant urban sprawl, a long way away from the farming regions.

I thought that the studies on ‘buy local’ had basically rubbished the idea.

To a large extent. But those studies may not be so applicable when the local produce is coming from the building you live or work in, so the transport & storage costs are virtually nil. Also, urban greenhouse design tends to utilise the greywater from the building, reducing the load on urban waste water infrastructure.

Note that I’m not actually a “proponent of urban greenhouse systems”; OTOH, I am open to the possibility that they could be viable, if not in the present, then maybe with future technology &/or economic constraints.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

NY might be likely to find political reasons to invest in it. It probably wouldn’t replace farming but supplement various things

I can see in the future kitchen gardens to supplement foods and maybe some chooks or guinea pigs or something to go along with that.

Then again I was thinking that in a future era of expensive oil fuel, not going back to self sufficiency but thinking more like WW2 England, stuff was expensive so you gre some veggies and got eggs and meat from chooks.

But with gas fields, shale oil I am reading estimates of energy availability out the ying yang. Probably lots of hype cut if true will be a game changer if cheap fuel can be sourced from Canadian and American resouces and not the middle east.

Timor may end up richer than weather girls and hopefully it will be managed well.

It is also one of those questions that you have to consider what will have developed 50 years from now re: population etc.

Food doesn’t need to be grown in every corner of the globe. Countries that can’t produce food without intensive electric light would probably be better off importing it.

Skunkworks said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

NY might be likely to find political reasons to invest in it. It probably wouldn’t replace farming but supplement various things

I can see in the future kitchen gardens to supplement foods and maybe some chooks or guinea pigs or something to go along with that.

Then again I was thinking that in a future era of expensive oil fuel, not going back to self sufficiency but thinking more like WW2 England, stuff was expensive so you gre some veggies and got eggs and meat from chooks.

But with gas fields, shale oil I am reading estimates of energy availability out the ying yang. Probably lots of hype cut if true will be a game changer if cheap fuel can be sourced from Canadian and American resouces and not the middle east.

Timor may end up richer than weather girls and hopefully it will be managed well.

Seems a good idea to brush up on who’s doing what. ?:/

dv said:

Food doesn’t need to be grown in every corner of the globe. Countries that can’t produce food without intensive electric light would probably be better off importing it.

Isn’t everything going LED these days?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Seems a good idea to brush up on who’s doing what. ?:/

Russia probably has shedloads and the sea bottoms are still relatively unexplored. I am not so concerned about peak oil, it is a finite resource for sure but I think there is more than we know about and if we have 400 years worth that is 500 years worth of advancement that will change equations as it goes.

And China, they have shedloads of coal and lots of unexplored regions. They are probably sitting on shedloads of energy as well.

>Timor may end up richer than weather girls and hopefully it will be managed well.

Yes, let us all hope they do as well out of natural resources as Narua. did.

What is the received wisdom on Crematoriums and global warming, do we have any green left weakly chaining themselves to chimneys and the like?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

dv said:

sibeen said:

>And oh, yeah, instead of being traditional greenhouses lit by fluorescent lamps,

Bugger me, and here I was thinking all this time that a traditional greenhouse were lit by a large star located reasonably close to our planet.

You do learn something every day.

Makes me not want to read the article

Yes but your easily deterred.

you’re

I suppose an exception might be a place like Iceland which has abundant electrical power and higher than average import costs. Then again there is no place in Iceland that could fairly be coonsidered “urban” or need vertical greenhousing.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

dv said:

I guess the main thing is:

What is the point of urban farming?

doesn’t the answer depend on where in the world you are asking the question?

NY might be likely to find political reasons to invest in it. It probably wouldn’t replace farming but supplement various things

Yes, with property prices in NY being so low I can see tenants being set adrift so that the local crop of rutabagas can be placed down for the winter crop.

wookiemeister said:

Yes but youir easily deterred.

you’re

thank you

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

doesn’t the answer depend on where in the world you are asking the question?

NY might be likely to find political reasons to invest in it. It probably wouldn’t replace farming but supplement various things

Yes, with property prices in NY being so low I can see tenants being set adrift so that the local crop of rutabagas can be placed down for the winter crop.

I don’t know that much about the place :)

sibeen said:

>Timor may end up richer than weather girls and hopefully it will be managed well.

Yes, let us all hope they do as well out of natural resources as Narua. did.

Well there is a lesson there than can be learned and hopefully at least in this region taken on board.

PNG is doing well at the moment with mining political capital, a few extra squillions for unis squeezed out and no guarantee of resettling asylum seekers, I doffs me hat to Peter O’Neill, he bent Rudd over a barrel and rogered him royally.

Now, now, Curve, you may be verging on a political comment there; and we all know that they are banned from this site, as they may lead to discourse amongst the children :)

What will be Australia’s development in 50 years? How much can the east coast develop and how?

China is supposed to be making moves to move to gold standard. What would that spell for it’s trade?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

What will be Australia’s development in 50 years? How much can the east coast develop and how?

I reckon it will carry on, a ribbon of building along the coast and expanded hubs. Geography is pretty durable and people tend to settle in response to geography, not bend the terrain too much to suit themselves, that is expensive and takes a lot of prerequisites to make worthwhile.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

What will be Australia’s development in 50 years? How much can the east coast develop and how?

1. Hopefully lots.

2a. Lots
2b. Many and varied ways.

I hope that helps.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

China is supposed to be making moves to move to gold standard. What would that spell for it’s trade?

Rack and yuan, is my guess.

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

What will be Australia’s development in 50 years? How much can the east coast develop and how?

1. Hopefully lots.

2a. Lots
2b. Many and varied ways.

I hope that helps.

How is the Murray redevelopment going?

Skunkworks said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

What will be Australia’s development in 50 years? How much can the east coast develop and how?

I reckon it will carry on, a ribbon of building along the coast and expanded hubs. Geography is pretty durable and people tend to settle in response to geography, not bend the terrain too much to suit themselves, that is expensive and takes a lot of prerequisites to make worthwhile.

Isn’t the farmland being bought up by asians?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

What will be Australia’s development in 50 years? How much can the east coast develop and how?

1. Hopefully lots.

2a. Lots
2b. Many and varied ways.

I hope that helps.

How is the Murray redevelopment going?

Quite well.

I believe the Dartmouth dam will have to begin to spill this week or next. The river is at heights not seen for a long time, barring floods. So all in all, a B+ at least.

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

1. Hopefully lots.

2a. Lots
2b. Many and varied ways.

I hope that helps.

How is the Murray redevelopment going?

Quite well.

I believe the Dartmouth dam will have to begin to spill this week or next. The river is at heights not seen for a long time, barring floods. So all in all, a B+ at least.

That would have been helped by all the rain of late?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Skunkworks said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

What will be Australia’s development in 50 years? How much can the east coast develop and how?

I reckon it will carry on, a ribbon of building along the coast and expanded hubs. Geography is pretty durable and people tend to settle in response to geography, not bend the terrain too much to suit themselves, that is expensive and takes a lot of prerequisites to make worthwhile.

Isn’t the farmland being bought up by asians?

Its not like they can take it away.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Skunkworks said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

What will be Australia’s development in 50 years? How much can the east coast develop and how?

I reckon it will carry on, a ribbon of building along the coast and expanded hubs. Geography is pretty durable and people tend to settle in response to geography, not bend the terrain too much to suit themselves, that is expensive and takes a lot of prerequisites to make worthwhile.

Isn’t the farmland being bought up by asians?

Ahh, you have hit the nub of the problem right on its little head there. looks around I’ve been told touches nose that some of these people don’t look like US. The utter bastards.

I’d stop it, I would!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

How is the Murray redevelopment going?

Quite well.

I believe the Dartmouth dam will have to begin to spill this week or next. The river is at heights not seen for a long time, barring floods. So all in all, a B+ at least.

That would have been helped by all the rain of late?

Is there a long term plan of development?

Skunkworks said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Skunkworks said:

I reckon it will carry on, a ribbon of building along the coast and expanded hubs. Geography is pretty durable and people tend to settle in response to geography, not bend the terrain too much to suit themselves, that is expensive and takes a lot of prerequisites to make worthwhile.

Isn’t the farmland being bought up by asians?

Its not like they can take it away.

err,, no. I was thinking they might be more into spending money on development

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

How is the Murray redevelopment going?

Quite well.

I believe the Dartmouth dam will have to begin to spill this week or next. The river is at heights not seen for a long time, barring floods. So all in all, a B+ at least.

That would have been helped by all the rain of late?

No, no, no, no. The Murray – Darling system has historically relied upon desalination plants.

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Skunkworks said:

I reckon it will carry on, a ribbon of building along the coast and expanded hubs. Geography is pretty durable and people tend to settle in response to geography, not bend the terrain too much to suit themselves, that is expensive and takes a lot of prerequisites to make worthwhile.

Isn’t the farmland being bought up by asians?

Ahh, you have hit the nub of the problem right on its little head there. looks around I’ve been told touches nose that some of these people don’t look like US. The utter bastards.

I’d stop it, I would!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The asians have different agricultural practices to ours just to begin with. Will they use our techniques?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Isn’t the farmland being bought up by asians?

Ahh, you have hit the nub of the problem right on its little head there. looks around I’ve been told touches nose that some of these people don’t look like US. The utter bastards.

I’d stop it, I would!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The asians have different agricultural practices to ours just to begin with. Will they use our techniques?

Oh, I agree. I’m fairly sure there is a secret cabal, just waiting for after the election, who will bring thousands of ‘asians’ over here just to shit in the fields.

sibeen said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

sibeen said:

Ahh, you have hit the nub of the problem right on its little head there. looks around I’ve been told touches nose that some of these people don’t look like US. The utter bastards.

I’d stop it, I would!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The asians have different agricultural practices to ours just to begin with. Will they use our techniques?

Oh, I agree. I’m fairly sure there is a secret cabal, just waiting for after the election, who will bring thousands of ‘asians’ over here just to shit in the fields.

what the fuck are you talking about?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

dv said:

I guess the main thing is:

What is the point of urban farming?

doesn’t the answer depend on where in the world you are asking the question?

Yeah, Cuba is a good example, when the Soviet Union collapsed Cuba lost 80% of its trade, its farming sector couldn’t get fuel or fertiliser, or parts for machinery.

Urban farming proved very important in getting them through the worst years of the collapse (they call it the special period), a lot of peak oil proponents say Cuba is an example of what is in store for much of the world when peak oil hits home, and perhaps an example of how to survive in difficult times.

It’s not just a question of oil, look at how many countries are so debt laden that they may not be able to get international loans to buy the oil.

Might be interesting to check what you could actually grow in a warehouse and if via soil, or hydroponics. The use of soil or soil-like materials, plus moisture will be very heavy and might not be suitable other than for ground floor use, which is not vertical horticulture. The vegetables that may be grown by hydroponics has currently proved to be very limited and not cheap.

Produce needs to be harvested and the ground cultivated and resown, which due to the amount of labour involved is usually done by tractor, which unless on the ground floor, does not seem realistic unless building are designed for this type of activity, which defeats the idea of inner city use due to construction and the high cost of land.

One bonus of urban highrise hydroponics is that in the case of a volcanic winter it would still produce food, supplementing stockpiles.

Anywho said:

One bonus of urban highrise hydroponics is that in the case of a volcanic winter it would still produce food, supplementing stockpiles.

Assuming you can still get electricity and running water.