Futurology

1690 readers

125 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

voidx@futurology.today

Lugh@futurology.today

Espiritdescali@futurology.today

AwesomeLowlander@futurology.today

A new vertical farm, with a footprint of less than an acre, can produce 1.8 million kg of fruit annually. (newatlas.com)

submitted 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) by Lugh@futurology.today to c/futurology@futurology.today

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 19 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

I really do want to like the idea of vertical farms, and hydroponics in general as there are lots of benefits versus wild growing, but whenever I see some article claiming sustainability or a reduction in climate impact, it's total bullshit.

All of these systems require massive amounts of nutrients to keep the plants alive and producing, and that essentially means all kinds of mining. The byproducts of these facilities are also toxic, and there is no regulation about how they have to manage that...yet. Essentially they are just taking the farm runoff problem and moving it from rural areas where it's already bad, and transplanting it to denser urban areas.

If they could find better ways to streamline the acquisition of the fertilizer components needed for these facilities, and also the treatment or or disposal of the byproduct, these would be a much better idea.

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 9 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

There's no reason it couldn't be a closed system, where any fertilizer that doesn't become part of the crop biomass is recycled. In theory it should be more sustainable than existing agriculture and use less fertilizer per kg of crop produced.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Could be, but isn't, which is where some regulations probably need to come in. I'm familiar with the systems Plenty uses, and it's all automated.

Prime > start > feed > dump once dead

I've not seen another of these large scale startups doing anything different as of yet, which does make sense cost-wise. Any crop you grow won't ever use an exact amount of nutrients at cycle end with a completely neutral byproduct, and trying to reuse what is left would require a lot of expensive lab efforts which they don't care to invest in.

Example: say you start with a 9N-12P-34K solution, and after a month it degrades to 0-0-12. You can't just refill the nutrients with that same mixture you started with, or you'll damage or risk killing the crop with too much Potassium. You'd need to analyze the loop nutrients to know what level you're at for each nutrient, and adjust to get the mixture right to recharge properly. Currently all these systems just dump and recharge because it's cheap (for now) and easy, but these high concentrations of the various components just end up saturating an area the same as farm runoff. Even if you filter, that filtered medium needs to go somewhere.

There are fancier methods of nutrient filtration extraction and recapture just starting to become more feasible, and we should be looking at making sure these are being used for these large operations.

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 1 points 3 hours ago

Could be, but isn’t, which is where some regulations probably need to come in.

I assume also that the technological side of things as far from perfected, but that will improve over time.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, an urban environment flushes tons of fertilizer down the drain every day...

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Human waste is not suitable for fertilizer.

[–] leisesprecher@feddit.org 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Of course it is. Or do you really think, cow and pig manure is fundamentally different from our shit?

The only difference are some germs, but that can be handled - otherwise water treatment plants would cause epidemics downstream.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

It most definitely is not.

https://www.fda.gov/media/117422/download https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_soil

I believe some small pilot programs in EU allowed specific types of TREATED sewage to be used, but that's a whole different thing.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 3 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I don't see how vertical farming can make sense. There is only so much sunlight striking the ground and you just changed the angle and so shaded something else.

[–] baggins@beehaw.org 2 points 3 hours ago

Read the article - it's indoors.

[–] bestboyfriendintheworld@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Artificial lighting exists.

[–] bluGill@fedia.io 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but where does the energy for that light come from? If the answer is burning things (this is the most likely answer today!) then you are making the world worse. Renewable answers all go back to the sun so why not use the sun directly and avoid all the inefficiencies from turning the sun into electric and then back into light? Which leaves nuclear - which is dieing because of expense.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

Photosynthesis only uses a couple frequencies. Using solar to generate electricity and feed that into target LEDs can be significantly more efficient.