Vertical farming

On 2008-07-15, modom (palindrome guy) <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's just crazy enough that it might work.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15farm.html?ref=dining

Unfortunately, you give us a link we have to sign up for, provide our email
address, and then log in. Screw the NYT! Why not just give us the
information from the source?

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

nb

Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
slope. And lots of labor.

Steve

On 2008-07-15, Steve Pope <[email protected]> wrote:

> slope. And lots of labor.

I can see it now. NY homeless with signs reading:

will vert farm if u get me high

nb

Steve Pope said...

> Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
> in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
> or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
> slope. And lots of labor.
>
> Steve


I don't see how it's going to be cheap or even feasible to provide
controlled artificial sunlight to all the floors year round.

In Kennett Square, PA, "The Mushroom Capital of the World," they VF indoor
farm mushrooms since they can be carefully climate controlled and grow in
the dark so artificial sunlight is minimal, mostly for the benefit of the
mushroom farmers to work their crops. They've been vertical farming for
years, just not 10 stories tall, I don't think.

Since mushrooms grow so fast, farmers can turn over harvests every day in
rotation.

Vertical farmers would need to genetically engineer crops to grow in the
dark. I don't think we're there yet nor should we be, imho.

And what illegal alien with half a brain would go to work in a building to
pick the harvest?

Andy

In article <Xns9ADC93E1260Fcotd@216.196.97.136>, Andy <q> wrote:

>Steve Pope said...

>> Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
>> in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
>> or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
>> slope. And lots of labor.

>I don't see how it's going to be cheap or even feasible to provide
>controlled artificial sunlight to all the floors year round.

I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
like a business or residential district, taking advantage
of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
rather than from straight above.

Only pot farmers can afford much artificial light...

Steve

Steve Pope said...

> In article <Xns9ADC93E1260Fcotd@216.196.97.136>, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>>Steve Pope said...
>
>>> Vertical farming of a sort has been going on for centuries
>>> in steeply-sloped parts of Italy like the Amalfi coast
>>> or southern Tyrolia. All you need is a near-vertical, south-facing
>>> slope. And lots of labor.
>
>>I don't see how it's going to be cheap or even feasible to provide
>>controlled artificial sunlight to all the floors year round.
>
> I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
> light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
> sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
> like a business or residential district, taking advantage
> of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
> rather than from straight above.
>
> Only pot farmers can afford much artificial light...
>
> Steve


It still can't work. Each succeeding lower floor would get less and less
sunlight, yielding less and less. Even if the building rotated, the "inner
sanctum" of each floor wouldn't see direct sunlight.

Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
acre/10 story building. No other way to do it. It would be "Insanity
Architecture & Engineering."

Let's just think of the illegal aliens and put VFs to rest!! :D

Andy

In article <Xns9ADCAF22B1F08cotd@216.196.97.136>, Andy <q> wrote:

>Steve Pope said...

>> I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
>> light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
>> sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
>> like a business or residential district, taking advantage
>> of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
>> rather than from straight above.

>It still can't work. Each succeeding lower floor would get less and less
>sunlight, yielding less and less. Even if the building rotated, the "inner
>sanctum" of each floor wouldn't see direct sunlight.

All this implies is that the vertical spacing from floor to
floor must be large compared to the width of the floor.

>Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
>acre/10 story building. No other way to do it.

I completely disagree. Why would you need to build a tall building
(as opposed to a flat one) if you're simply piping in
electricity for lighting? The whole purpouse of a vertical
arangement is to intersect a large segment of sunlight
for a given footprint, thus justifying the construction cost
of a tall structure.


Steve

Steve Pope said...

> In article <Xns9ADCAF22B1F08cotd@216.196.97.136>, Andy <q> wrote:
>
>>Steve Pope said...
>
>>> I'm not aware that vertical farming ever involves artificial
>>> light. Instead, the man-made vertical structure intersects
>>> sunlight that would otherwise fall upon non-farming land,
>>> like a business or residential district, taking advantage
>>> of the fact that most sunlight is coming in at an angle
>>> rather than from straight above.
>
>>It still can't work. Each succeeding lower floor would get less and less
>>sunlight, yielding less and less. Even if the building rotated, the
"inner
>>sanctum" of each floor wouldn't see direct sunlight.
>
> All this implies is that the vertical spacing from floor to
> floor must be large compared to the width of the floor.
>
>>Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
>>acre/10 story building. No other way to do it.
>
> I completely disagree. Why would you need to build a tall building
> (as opposed to a flat one) if you're simply piping in
> electricity for lighting? The whole purpouse of a vertical
> arangement is to intersect a large segment of sunlight
> for a given footprint, thus justifying the construction cost
> of a tall structure.
>
>
> Steve


OK, let's take the Pentagon, for example. It sits on 34 acrews but has
149.219467 acres of floor space.

Would you rather pay electricity and water and construction costs for
building 150 acres of vertical farm or just use 150 acres of God's green
earth. Which is the greener solution?

When you add up all the time it would take to creat the Pentagons you'd
have to build to have supply meet demand, we'd all be dead of starvation.

Andy

Andy <q> wrote:

>Steve Pope said...

>> All this implies is that the vertical spacing from floor to
>> floor must be large compared to the width of the floor.

>>>Artificial sunlight would be the only feasible way to do a city block 10
>>>acre/10 story building. No other way to do it.

>> I completely disagree. Why would you need to build a tall building
>> (as opposed to a flat one) if you're simply piping in
>> electricity for lighting? The whole purpouse of a vertical
>> arangement is to intersect a large segment of sunlight
>> for a given footprint, thus justifying the construction cost
>> of a tall structure.

>OK, let's take the Pentagon, for example. It sits on 34 acrews but has
>149.219467 acres of floor space.
>
>Would you rather pay electricity and water and construction costs for
>building 150 acres of vertical farm or just use 150 acres of God's green
>earth. Which is the greener solution?

The premise of vertical farming is that you can site the
things in the middle of a densely populated area, thus
saving transport cost/energy in taking the product to market
relative to conventional farming. Whether these costs
offset the cost of building/maintaining the vertial structure
are to me unclear, but that's the premise.

Steve