Post 9r2daeUhfFpYYov4mu by decoy@niu.moe
(DIR) More posts by decoy@niu.moe
(DIR) Post #9r2dLbINH8b2IOyYXQ by cwebber@octodon.social
2020-01-11T18:56:02Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
> These indoor “farms” would use solar panels to harvest naturally occurring sunlight, and convert it into electricity, so that they can power…artificial sunlight? In other words, they’re trying to use the sun to replace the sun.>> But we don’t need to replace the sun. Of all of the things we should worry about in agriculture, the availability of free sunlight is not one of them. Any system that seeks to replace the sun to grow food is probably a bad idea.https://globalecoguy.org/no-vertical-farms-wont-feed-the-world-5313e3e961c0
(DIR) Post #9r2dLbU4ZdxCsgRtlw by emsenn@tenforward.social
2020-01-11T19:08:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber I think this looks at the problem the wrong way, and I'm not a proponent of vertical farms.But they aren't built to replace the sun. They're built to prevent weather-caused losses. Their ability to prevent such losses is argued to outweigh their other inefficiencies
(DIR) Post #9r2dLbeLxQB3OZG6nQ by cwebber@octodon.social
2020-01-11T19:09:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@emsenn That's true, it may be a big difference between whether we're aruging for supplementing vs replacing!
(DIR) Post #9r2dLbmrRmyzoxEu3c by emsenn@tenforward.social
2020-01-11T19:11:10Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber I agree with the sentiment of the article and your comments: it is silly to try and use electricity to replace the sun, and it shows just how near-sighted so many people involved in the industry are about it.But, for example, my apartment is going to be lit when I'm in it anyway. Laser-pointing the light to not waste it on ambient lighting is not a realistic solution given how human vision works, so why /not/ use the ambient light to create biomass?
(DIR) Post #9r2daeUhfFpYYov4mu by decoy@niu.moe
2020-01-11T20:24:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber the idea is import the sun inside a controlled environment to have a micro-climate that isn't possible in the local location. so yeah there is silly overhead to get the sun inside a warehouse, but then you get to grow tropical fruits in a snowy season, and less energy in transport and global shipping lanes. also there is a possibility to optimize the micro climate to make things super efficient and grow faster than traditional agriculture
(DIR) Post #9r2daeed4Llp3bZ0G8 by clacke@libranet.de
2020-01-16T00:06:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@decoy @cwebber I wouldn't be surprised if transportation had a lower energy cost than growing things in places they don't grow.
(DIR) Post #9r2eSeHgf2k3XyZxJo by clacke@libranet.de
2020-01-16T00:16:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Ah, actually the originally linked article brings this up.
(DIR) Post #9r2fVYprTZ4JTFW4G0 by clacke@libranet.de
2020-01-16T00:28:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cwebber I like the idea of vertical farming not because it saves on food miles (which the article points out isn't a huge concern), but because if it is plausible it might reduce land use, and that's a huge issue leading to deforestation and similar things.If it cannot run off sunlight from the outside though (in a kind of backwards panopticon), it probably cannot save much in land use. I'll assume until shown otherwise, and the equation definitely changes once we e.g. get 80% efficient solar panels rather than today's 20%, or once we get fusion power going, that the area used for solar panels could have been better used just putting plants there.
(DIR) Post #9r2jbfkd4nEETPEqwa by clacke@libranet.de
2020-01-16T01:14:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
because * it is plausible