Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Vertical Farming, dialup warning

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 07:55 PM
Original message
Vertical Farming, dialup warning
Edited on Tue Dec-08-09 08:05 PM by HysteryDiagnosis
On edit: To mention that I have a neighbor.


http://www.americantowns.com/ct/fairfield/news/earthtalk-vertical-farming-238431

“The reason we need vertical farming is that horizontal farming is failing,” Despommier told MSNBC, adding that if current practices don’t change soon, humanity will have to devote to agriculture an area bigger than Brazil to keep pace with global food demand. Another benefit of vertical farming is that former farmland could be returned to a natural state and even help fight global warming. As agricultural land becomes forest and other green space, plants and trees there can store carbon dioxide while also serving as habitat for wildlife otherwise displaced by development.

Vertical farming is not without critics, who argue that the practice would use huge amounts of electricity for the artificial lights and machinery that would facilitate year-round harvests. Bruce Bugbee, a Utah State University crop physiologist, believes that the power demands of vertical farming—growing crops requires about 100 times the amount of light as people working in office buildings—would make the practice too expensive compared to traditional farming where the primary input, sunlight, is free and abundant. Proponents argue that vertical farms could produce their own power by tapping into local renewable sources (solar, wind, tidal or geothermal) as well as by burning biomass from crop waste.

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. wouldn't it be technologically a whole lot simpler to just...
Edited on Tue Dec-08-09 07:59 PM by mike_c
...produce fewer mouths to feed? So we can get by on a smaller proportion of the Earth's primary production?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I'll bet there wouldn't be much problem with erosion, flooding,
Edited on Tue Dec-08-09 08:09 PM by HysteryDiagnosis
etc.

On edit to add that I have a neighbor and this link to a NY Times article on Big Food vs. Big Insurance

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?_r=3&ref=opinion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Another article explaning the benefits of going vertical


http://www.miller-mccune.com/science_environment/farming-in-high-rises-raises-hopes-1226

With the worst drought in 70 years decimating northern China's winter wheat crop and the soybean harvest down 40 percent in Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay this year, the world food crisis continues to expand — even as increased demand for plant-based biofuels further strains agricultural lands. What's more, by midcentury an estimated 80 percent of the world's population will live in urban areas. Feeding these new city dwellers will require creative ideas to reduce food miles and the associated energy use.

One solution may lie in Dickson Despommier's vertical farm — a 30-story crop powerhouse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. it's ironic that the concept drawing places the tower in the midst...
Edited on Tue Dec-08-09 08:35 PM by mike_c
...of horizontal green space that could probably produce more food than the tower at a fraction of the cost and energy footprint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Who do you suggest should be culled?
A lot easier solution is to ban ethanol fuel, we lost a full third of our agricultural area to that boondoggle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-08-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Yes, a bullet is probably easier to manufacture than a waste recycling efficient garden.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC