• CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    They’re great thoughts though I’d like to point out that most human made structures do no make use of the sun and so their complaint about having solar panels take up the same space is somewhat dubious.

    The other comment I’d make is that they chose to highlight an experiment utilizing wheat. Mostly because we use a lot of it. However, humans could modify their diets to consume less wheat if we wanted to. There is nothing mandatory about consuming wheat and so we could focus on plants that need less light to grow.

    I’d also like to note that the vertical farming stuff has very little innovation going on in the space because there is no demand for it at all currently. If there were demand, you may see alternative technologies taken up.

    Alternative technologies like using mirrors to harvest the UV light and transport it without electrical costs and losses in reproducing it. Or mutating the plants in some ways. Or making better use of UV light by only targeting the leaves or such. Plenty could be done to innovate.

    That all being said, I think vertical farming has absolutely no future. Mostly because the alternatives are so good. We could redo an entire farming setup. Or we could cut down on food waste. And cut down on meat consumption. And invest in lab grown meats. Lab grown meats that have a large potential to turn food waste into usable food. All of those are far better tech and this is a dead end concept I’m afraid.

    • el_abuelo@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Wheat is an amazing “invention” because it is so calorie dense compared to other crops, I would imagine (just guessing, no expertise in the area) that plants that grow with less sun don’t get to be as calorie dense because they have lower input energy - and ultimately the conservation of mass/energy is a physical law.

      Maybe I’m miles off with this guess - so don’t take it as fact.

      • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I don’t necessarily view the limiting factor as being the ultimate nutrient density per unit UV light.

        Some compounding factors if you’d like to think about this more: UV light is not a monolith and so if you’re using artificial light you may be able to select for plants that still have high calorie yields but can accept a lower wavelength of UV that would lower power costs.

        The same goes for water costs and just the general suitability for these vertical towers as well as what fertilizers work best for them.

        The amount of optimization is one of the reasons I’m not hopeful for this type of project. There’s a ton of variables, you’re essentially making an entirely new form of farming and it’s a harder version of it. Meaning that it won’t experience the explosion of industry around it probably.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Currently, i see no alternative that doesn’t devastate ecosystems. I see a future in vertical farming, as knowledge and consciousness of that problem grows.

      • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        In the eventual future, sure. But that may be a century away. There are many other solutions that should be implemented before vertical farming that would actually protect ecosystems. The main thing would be pesticides. That’s what I’m far more concerned about than this mere concept.