Maybe I'm just hydroponic-brained but I feel like they could grow way more and use fewer resources (water, space) with elevated/multi-story structures and better irrigation.

[–] Hexamerous@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This article in question is atrocious, and think hydro has its places, but the whole "vertical farming" feels like hopium on par with "lab grown meat" seeing how much energy it requires to just run the grow lights. Of course not all crops have the same DLI requirements, but for reference the Sun gives about 1000w/m² around the equator. So assuming you have to match that to some degree (a solar panel gives you 20-30% of that per m² before other losses. So we're talking like 5m² solar panels for every 1m² inside the farm) and then you need to remove all the excess heat from the building. So basically a server farm giving you low caloric density crops like salad, berries or mircro-greens with a heavy upstart-cost. And you still need fertilizer and PH buffers and water sterilization and plastic packaging and seedling plugs etc.

I think a simpler solution, and one we already have the technology and infrastructure for, would be to stop feeding soy to animals and just make tofu-cool

Those "pontoon conveyor belt" hydro greenhouses are really cool tho.

[–] sexywheat@hexbear.net 1 points 3 days ago

For indoor farms ultimately it comes down to electricity cost. If you're in an area that uses fossil fuels for electricity production then it is prohibitively expensive, but if you have cheap hydro power for example it's much more economical.

That said, just using the image above as a reference, they could absolutely utilise the natural sun lighting while being much more space efficient and grow vertically. You are correct that the up-front costs of hyrdoponic systems are high, but over time they use substantially less water and plants grow way faster and more efficiently.