Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Incredibly resource-intensive.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Khyron
PS: I'm sorry I missed the "of" in your first post. I was annoyed by the gist of your post and I didn't bother reading it in detail, that's why I missed that preposition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I looked at various parts of the site and read a lot of the papers, ALL of which are extremely short on details.

---

Quote:

---

They CLAIM that a multi-story greenhouse will have all the benefits - multiplied. What they don't seem to know is that, in real life, greenhouses use a LOT of pesticide and fertilizer. That's b/c they are always moist (an invitation to fungus and insects), and b/c as a tightly-spaced monoculture they are vulnerable to catastrophic infestations. And since growers are looking to make a profit they can't just blow-off a growing season OR a structure to blight. Hence, fertilizers and pesticides.

---

Quote:

---

As a food supply, a tightly spaced monoculture is a food disaster waiting to happen should an insect/ fungus/ bacteria come along.

---

Quote:

---

There are other problems such a light penetration to the interior (indeed, every drawing with any detail showed plants growing on the outermost edge only, not in the interior).

---

Quote:

---

While this MAY be feasible it probably won't be profitable for several reasons - the main one being the cost of 'utility rich" and urban land. Paying off the mortgage in tomatoes and leeks would take a long, long time.

---

Quote:

---

Lastly, I'm not sure we know what needs to be in the soil and thus the plants for our own health, and what needs to be kept out as well. (hormones from sewage, anyone?)

---

Quote:

---

I'd like to think humanity can come up with answers, but in a world that I think will be shorter and shorter of resources, I can't imagine most places being able to ante-up for start-up and on-going resource demands.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The are a lots of 'coulds', 'mights', 'considers', 'options', and so on, but very little actual calculations that say specifically if and how it would work - where's the pencil whipping?

---

Quote:

---

I grow plants indoors as a hobby. The biggest limiting factor is light - it's literally food for the plants, and without enough they ail and die.

---

Quote:

---

Even here where there are nurseries and greenhouses, MOST plants spend most of their lives out-doors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I wasn't looking for details but a certain amount of estimation would be helpful to gauge feasibility. [...] The 'pencil whipping' I was referring to would be things like -

By first figuring out the plant basics ...
- needs and limitations for a specific area - light needs (lumens, spectra), type of plant (long day/ short day/ long night/ short night), temperatures, growing season, pollination requirements
- utility - balanced nutrition
- productivity
- stability/ reliability
- seed/ hybrid sources

then given the basic plant and human factors you can then go on to work out the engineering requirements ...
- supplemental lighting (if needed)
- supplemental heating/ cooling (if needed)
- soil and water characteristics
- flexible systems

which can then be used to estimate the cost/ benefit under different scenarios ...
- energy expense
- land expense
- human expense

---

Quote:

---

If they expect the idea to be taken seriously they're going to have to do a lot of spade-work (so to speak) to solidify the choices, coulds, mights, maybes etc.

---

Quote:

---

"so one can use lamps or filter natural light through the building using mirrors and shafts." It's not an inconsiderable problem. Even three feet from a window is too little light for many plants - and most productive garden plants.

---

Quote:

---

"Are the greenhouses in your area used for commercial purposes?"
Yes, they are ALL commercial. The biggest issue is land cost.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
These are quotes form your first link -
http://verticalfarm.com/pdf/report2006/Commercially%20Crops.pdf

Experimental crops to be considered, based on economic profitability, yield increases, nutritional value and genetic modifiability include: sugar cane and sugar beets, corn, wheat, rice, fish (tilapia) and others.

as current indoor agricultural techniques continue to evolve

Thus one must decide which crops are the most cost effective, nutritionally relevant, and economically plausible and which can be processed in a vertical farm setting. (Hmmm, I think they're making my point.)

No pencil-whipping here, just could, mights, possiblies ...

The same is true of your second link http://verticalfarm.com/plans-2k3.htm

---

Quote:

---

The third link http://verticalfarm.com/plans-2k3.htm has some estimation calculations, but neglects some very important drawbacks to the plan - namely, the cost of a grey-water system and the quality of the water.

---

Quote:

---

The fourth link http://verticalfarm.com/plans-2k5.htm again contains some estimation calculations but has serious holes in the analysis (which I may get to at the end of the say).

---

Quote:

---

"Yes, just ignore the work they have done" Was that snark necessary ?

---

Quote:

---

I did read the pages, I do have OTHER sources to draw on (which I shared)

---

Quote:

---

So you know something, since YOU can't keep the discussion, at a minimum, neutral - I'll judge the proposal by its proponent and give it a big:

---

Quote:

---

added: I've developed many first-time ever things. The first think you have to have is a goal - which this is missing.

---

Quote:

---

Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres)
No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests
All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers
VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water
VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services
VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface
VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of
evapotranspiration
VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible
parts of plants and animals
VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.)
VF converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers
VF creates sustainable environments for urban centers
VF creates new employment opportunities
We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on
earth
VF may prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps
VF offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical
LDCs. If this should prove to be the case, then VF may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production.
VF could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water
and land for agriculture.

---

Quote:

---

And the second thing is to identify and either eliminate or work around the fatal hitches. B/c it doesn't matter how good 99.99% is, if that little important bit doesn't work, nothing works. What I see is a lot of hand-waving. That makes me nervous about their seriousness and their abilitites. These things HAVE to be done, and there doesn't seem to be anyone heading in that direction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I don't see it as economically feasible when we already grow a substantive surplus of food as it is on existing land, with more that could potentially be converted fairly quick - unless logistics of moving it becomes an insurmountable problem which is very unlikely.

---

Quote:

---

From the folks I asked to give it the once over who have some engineering backround, the general consensus is that it would not work, but they went beyond my technical knowledge quickly in even trying to explain why.

---