What does Veeky Forums think about the feasibility of Agri Towers? Single or mixed use skyscrapers that are dedicated to hydroponic agricultural production? It would allow year round production of food in any climate without the use of pesticides. Also they could be fully integrated into urban areas, so agricultural workers could live in cities.
The only problem I can think is that its simply more expensive than land, but as population expands land becomes more and more expensive.
Other urls found in this thread:
electri.org
youtube.com
news.nationalgeographic.com
weburbanist.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Nature always creates the most effective system. If you want optimal production, follow nature's design. I've never seen nature flowing water upstream to water vegetables. Therefore, this is not energetically efficient.
Build it in a rainy region and catch water on the roof to filter down. Basic bitch solutions to easy as fuck non-problems m9. Next minor pointless quibble for me to blow out the water please
You're joking, right?
>nature always creates the most effective system
>follow nature's design
I doubt you have fur, so you must get pretty cold during winter without using a coat.
It must be hard to see without glasses, since nature made you that way...
I think mechanized indoor urban agriculture is probably the future, but "farm skyscrapers" are probably not, for the same reasons there aren't any "factory skyscrapers."
>what are pipes
Ok so warehouse types buildings with no more than 10 floors?
>people who don't understand principle of least action are allowed here
>Ok so warehouse types buildings with no more than 10 floors?
That would be my guess, yeah. And probably on the ourskirts of cities, not in city centers.
Basically we ARE talking about a factory, just one that makes products not traditionally made in factories. So all the same economic forces should apply.
You're missing the point you buffoon. Humans have been able to manipulate the flow of water for literally millennia, routing water up a building is such a routine procedure that it shouldn't even be discussed in such a project.
Make sense I guess. Industrial/agricultural sectors of a city with good transportation connections for workers and a focus on low emissions and noise pollution so it doesn't devalue nearby land.
While you missed the fact that I am talking about energetical efficiency, not whether it is or isn't possible to realize this design.
You're still an idiot. You're acting as if it's some great feat to provide warm and cold water for people living at the top of the Burj Khalifa when in fact its the same principal required to provide water to the second floor of a suburban home.
Yes, and this method of water delivery is not cheap. It takes a lot of energy to move the water to the top of the tower and this is done only because there is no other way for people to get hot water there. There is much better and energetically efficient (cheaper) way for people to get and raise food. Just like nature, corportaions utilize "the principle of least action" and choose the method that is most effective.
For real, what do you not understand about this?
One of the big advantages of these designs us that they actually require very little water - existing facilities use less than 1% (that's not a typo) the water of traditional methods.
Also, a neat fact about New York City is that 95% of the water used requires zero energy to deliver - the supply comes through underground aqueducts from reservoirs at higher elevation, and pressure is supplied by gravity, not pumps.
Holy shit bro what is wrong with you. In Japan they raise chattel in tiered buildings, obviously that requires a lot of water being pumped up to the upper levels yes? Well lack of space make it economically viable to do so. Now shut up.
There might be lack of space in Japan, but most of the food produced is not produced in tiered buildings and that is why is it cheap as it is.
It's a simple, stupid idea that is economically and energetically not viable and only an absolute retard would consider utilizing this method of food producition.
The only way that thing is going to be profitable is if a huge cataclysm hits the planet and you have to pay like $ 50 for a tomato.
In any other case, renting/selling apartments etc will bring you 1000 times more money than this shit, and trust me if you've spent billions to build that thing you want to make some money in return.
I want this to happen because it would look super fucking cool, but there's no way it's happening, it's just not economically viable.
Not even that guy but are you retarded? Stacking crops when there isn't more space for traditional fields don't require that much more energy at all, especially if you also used that building to generate power
Well sky city plans exist.
electri.org
they already built a mini prototype
It's a stupid idea. Creating huge solar farms to turn sunlight into electricity, running that electricity across the grid, and then turning it back into light for plants that could have simply been grown in the sun is retarded and energy inefficient.
Building an energy generating building is also cost-effective and viable everywhere I suppose, yes?
Can you people not see the inefficiency of this all? We're talking here about mass production of crops and you want to build skycrappers. You two are the most retarded Veeky Forums posters I've seen in a long time and that says something.
Actually, factory farms use LESS energy. Traditional farming is actually very energy intensive, not to mention all the energy used in transportation from rural farms to where people actually live.
What, you efficiency experts don't have anything more to say about the actual existence of factory farming? Can I assume you've changed your minds?
the picture in the article is basically exactly what i had in mind.
So taking into account the fact that it is expensive to build skyscrapers, we will probably see agriculture shift away from rural areas into urban areas and will take place in low density buildings and will use hydroponic technology.
No pesticides!
Possible but not economical. Agriculture is an industrial business, you are building food factories, not a garden. In other words, when you push *any* industrial process into vertical buildings the following problems become significant:
1. Weight. A cubic meter of water weighs 1 ton. So a 60mx60m structure has to support at least 60 tons on each floor. And plumbing, motors, tanks etc to move it in and out.
2. Power. Specifically, for irrigation and lighting systems. This is no small problem as remember you have to deal with very high water pressure (in terms of getting high volumes of it up and down a tall vertical space) and every ceiling being covered in sun lamps. Also, power hookups for robots/other automated equipment.
3. Water. The sheer volume of water required for agriculture means that the area the skyscraper is in will likely need a new high-volume water and sewage lines. This is not cheap
4. Transportation. Pic related is how grain moves in the US. 100+ car (about 180 meters) trains are not uncommon. This means that railheads will have to be built, which can be very difficult in downtown urban areas.
5. Production. Grain Elevators are notorious for being safety hazards (due to dust) and are fucking huge (pic related). It's an industrial appliance, one which may be difficult to fit into a dense area.
6. Safety considerations. One of the reasons why skyscrapers aren't allowed to be used for industrial operations anymore (as was the case in the early twentieth century) was because if they catch fire, evacuating becomes more difficult the higher up you go. Automation may be able to "solve" this, but expansive fire retardant systems are expensive especially when retardants will destroy any product (food) it touches.
7. Even if all these factors are accounted for, regular farms are still cheaper since the real estate they sit on are just cheaper. Even oceanic aquafarms would be cheaper.
water flows downhill due to gravity, making it flow uphill requires a lot of electric power which isn't free
>One of the big advantages of these designs us that they actually require very little water - existing facilities use less than 1% (that's not a typo) the water of traditional methods.
Only due to air stones or filtration systems, which is an added expense and complication to the system. Remember, you're adding weight here which is a big problem when you're above 5 floors. Pic related is only 7 floors, but has to be made out of thick concrete.
Also, assuming a totally controlled environment, the building would likely look like this. A giant concrete tower, which in terms of square yardage would still only be comparable to midsize farms.
For comparison, these farm fields are the size of several city blocks.
>in terms of square yardage would still only be comparable to midsize farms.
But multiple orders of magnitude more productive.
After all of this you still don't understand the words you're using.
I love how you can continue to talk about pumping water like it's a significant problem in the same post you literally quote why that isn't a problem.
Interesting concept
How do you figure? Is a difference of 100x not "multiple orders of magnitude?"
If "productive" means "efficiency" then no, a ground level farm (especially one with a central pivot irrigation system) use far less electricity and water than a comparable vertical farm if only because it's (a) less complicated and (b) only requires one or two pumps. Assuming a hydroponics setup, runoff can be more easily caught, more easily oxidized, and returned to the plants (assuming no pesticides were used).
But in terms of real estate, it is more efficient assuming a limited space to put buildings.
tl;dr power consumption
>a ground level farm (especially one with a central pivot irrigation system) use far less electricity and water than a comparable vertical farm
Except that's actually not true at all. This is not a hypothetical question; the first ones already exist, and they use:
*40% less energy
*99% less water
So your (and others) central objection is empirically wrong.
What do you mean? Hydroponics still uses water. Remember, we're not making a garden here. We're doing an industrial operation. This means trays submerged in tanks full of water.
Also, even in an airstone system you still have to actually fill up the system initially, and add water due to expected losses (since no system can be expected to be 100% efficient). Disregarding the need for a centralized pump system, there still needs to be facilities to control water in the actual hydroponics bays. Likewise, there needs to be a control system for water oxidation.
>What do you mean?
I mean that the water system uses less energy than traditional irrigation methods, primarily because it uses 99% less water.
Another article about those awesome lettuce farms:
weburbanist.com
Even comparing just hydroponics systems, a ground level one will use less water and power than one of similar size arranged vertically if only due to pumping water upwards.
Water is still used and still has to be accounted for in terms of weight. Regardless if the water is flowing *through* the entire building or just individual floors, it still has to flow and still has to be there for plants to grow. Even if less water overall is used thanks to the (likely power intensive) oxidation system, there is still a given amount of water required. It's just that it's reused, rather than flowing out and being replaced with new water. Weightwise there is no difference as the amount of water required is the same.
>primarily because it uses 99% less water.
And do you know HOW it does that? Because of a power intensive oxidation system. The amount of water in the system itself is still equal to that of one where the water is totally dumped instead of oxidated/refreshed.
So you're just going to flatly deny objective reality then? Ok.
>what are trees
basically 99 percent of land based photosynthesis involves nature flowing water upstream you dipshit...
that said, good luck doing that for free op. pumping water up those towers is why they are not economically feasible, and thats even before you have to turn all the lights on.
>Because of a power intensive oxidation system.
As I said, it uses 40% less power than traditional farming.
The japanese scientists are able to produce lettuce hydroponically with 1/100 the water used in normal agricultural activity.
This is now a skyscraper porn thread.
...
...
what do you want to argue here
hydroponics is called HYDROponics for a reason. It still requires a base amount of water in the system to work. The plants still discharge waste somewhere, be it a sewage line or tank with an airstone in it. What about this concept to you not get? It uses less water, but weightwise it's the same. The only difference is where the water is flowing.
...
...
>sap in tree is circulating water
that thing looks like a gigantic bottle opener
...
...
As the article said, which didn't even mention what they were comparing it to.
this is Veeky Forums not /wg/
...
>As the article said, which didn't even mention what they were comparing it to.
Other lettuce farms, obviously.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
>Hydroponics offered 11 ± 1.7 times higher yields but required 82 ± 11 times more energy compared to conventionally produced lettuce. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first quantitative comparison of conventional and hydroponic produce production by example of lettuce grown in the southwestern United States. It identified energy availability as a major factor in assessing the sustainability of hydroponics, and it points to water-scarce settings offering an abundance of renewable energy (e.g., from solar, geothermal, or wind power) as particularly attractive regions for hydroponic agriculture.
tl;dr more electric power needed overall but less water needed overall
ok, but where are the numbers? Because the source here claims otherwise
>What about this concept to you not get?
What about "it demonstrably uses less energy" do YOU not get?
We're talking about water usage here. Using less water does not mean you are using less electric power, since electric power is required to convert wastewater back into usable irrigation water.
Was this guy right about everything? Or was he just a meme?
That source is talking about something else entirely. "Hydroponic farms in the United States." I'm talking about new methods, which currently haven't even been deployed anywhere in the U.S., let alone everywhere.
What about an aquaponics system that doesn't need water pumped in regularly?
>energetical efficiency
>ic al
You just lost the right to post
>I'm talking about new methods
such as what exactly
the article posted here references technology owned by General Electric, a Connecticut based company. They even link to a video about hydroponics on GE's Youtube channel. But they don't go into detail beyond "customized LED lighting".
Also, said Youtube video was posted on Oct 7th, 2013, the article on Jan 1st 2015 and the study I linked to on June 16th 2015. This makes the study the most pertinent information out of the three.
You should look up aquaponics, friend :^)
Regardless, according to the NatGeo article food wastage is cut from 30-40% to 3% and growth occurs twice as fast. In terms of energy expended per head of lettuce that makes it to market, the factory farm seems much more efficient especially if you account for energy used in transportation.
aquaponics is not the same as hydroponics
the study brings this up, read it less water is used, but it requires more electric power which means that it is not efficient. And transportation is exactly the same because in both instances the product still has to be moved to a processing plant.
I'm contributing new ideas to the conversation.
Someone mentioned earlier that treating the water costs a lot of energy, but an aquaponics system is largely self treating. Also, industrial indoor aquaponics systems already exist.
ok I get it I was trolled, good job
> most of the energy use for the hypothetical hydroponic greenhouse can be attributed to the heating and cooling loads. This is primarily due to the fact that the greenhouse was sited in Yuma, Arizona,
>Greenhouses located in more moderate climates (i.e., climates closer to the greenhouse set point temperature) will experience a lower energy demand. In fact, in certain climates heating and cooling systems may not be required, but instead replaced by a passive ventilation system, thus reducing the overall energy demand considerably.
The difference in electricity used is specific to that particular case and there is no reason to think that it would remain so large for factory farms in other areas.
>Eliminating the need for arable land has other benefits including versatility in system siting and a potential reduction in the distance in which food must travel.
The study doesn't actually take transportation into account but certainly suggests that factory farms could reduce its impact on energy usage.
>such as what exactly
Such as the farm in the article. I'm not really sure what you're asking?
>Also, said Youtube video was posted on Oct 7th, 2013, the article on Jan 1st 2015 and the study I linked to on June 16th 2015. This makes the study the most pertinent information out of the three.
Is this a joke? That study is about something else. If I post a study about hermit crabs published yesterday, does that then become "the most pertinent?"
>building towers to grow plants
>not building towers to house people, freeing up valuable farmland to grow food
>we can only do one of these things
All those "problems" are largely trivial
the issue is that agriculture doesn't make any fucking money, so any setup that costs huge investments like a building will never be profitable.
Large amounts of green houses are something we can see tho.
just watched his documentary
wew, i kind of want to believe it
he's right about the banks and fractional reserve lending tho