Of course CO2 emission due to transportation will be reduced. But more than that, the existing land that was used for farming can be converted to forest. So that at least we can restore the trees that were cut since the beginning of farming. Every nation must promote vertical farming to support reforestation.
@@richardgoode5314 (“The research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% - an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined - and still feed the world.”) josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf Joseph Poore headed up an Oxford study involving 116 countries over 5 years, the most comprehensive study ever on agriculture & environment and the study concluded that. "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use." “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” “Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy,” www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/veganism-environmental-impact-planet-reduced-plant-based-diet-humans-study-a8378631.html
Don't know if person who posted this is still reading comments but here it goes. I sincerely appreciate all who are heading towards vertical farming. Sadly most operations are no more than a political stunt to get funding with little regard for crop yield, nutrient density, or sharing this abundance of food through local social entities. When I had an idea to go vertical back in the mid to late 70's everyone thought I was crazy. Being one of 15 children we did not let anything go to waste. Not even waste. All of our construction materials was recycled=FREE. Long time rain water collector=Free. Farm, restaurant, school lunch room waste=FREE compost. all plastic cups, trays and so on from our recycle department= FREE.Organic stores and restaurants request certain veggies= zero waste criteria met. The cost of vertical farming is so low every farmer should use a portion of his land to do this. Save the open fields for field crops. We hold most Guinness and world records for produce . secret= perfect nutritional balance and also microbial balance. Highest quality, tops in yield, lowest possible operational costs. Very comfortable to donate to food banks, churches etc. Best job in the world for veterans coming home. peaceful.
70% to 90% less water. can easily be done without pesticides or chemical fertilizers. no worrying about soil degradation. if this is scaled up it can solve most of our agricultural problems and its associated environmental problems.
People may not realize this, but Singapore just kicked in Agricultural Technology with this move. It's actually way cheaper than the way we do it, with Frankenfoods that fuck up our health. You wanna solve the health care issue, switch from Industrial farming to this and you've solved more than a quarter of the issue.
great innovation, so many good things to come from it - especially if they can manage to go completely organic. just hopefully it won't become an issue of "we can farm anywhere so let's industrialise/urbanise rural areas." guess we'll just have to wait and see how it develops in the next few decades
This method with the cycling of plants is only one method, I'm sure in the future more efficient methods will be found. Vertical farming is not urgent now, but by around 2040-2050, when the world population starts hitting 10 billion, much of the environment has been destroyed, and food prices rise, it will be MUCH cheaper to grow food in skyscrapers near future megacities as it cuts down on transport and reduces dependency on food exporters. This IS the future whether you want it or not.
Industrial Farming as in the way Mega Corporations farm. Vertical Farming, yes, it uses artificial methods, it's still more natural than Industrial Farming, because it eliminates the need for any harmful chemicals are a lot of water. All the plants get is what the plants need to grow into tasty food. But I do understand what you're saying though.
I explain the teleworking thing to people IRL and they give me this .. -"people have to be in the same room for the creative process" -"people need to socialize" so i have more work to do to change peoples mind on the priority of getting out of petrol cars, it seems. Or maybe develop new kinds of collaborative software. I've contributed to the Rust language which i believe will ease collaboration on efficient software compared to C++ (cleaner modularity/composability)
(cont) Im not even talking specifically about vertical farming anymore, I'm talking about any and all advancements that will increase food and energy production without ruining the environment. The issues you raise are valid and still trying to be resolved everyday, by scientists and engineers who arent just sitting on their computers complaining about this. We will eventually reach a crisis point but one which will only accelerate these advancements, and I have faith in human ingenuity.
Wow. I had same idea of moving the racks to ensure all plants get sunlight so that grow lights can be eliminated and reduced piping and energy for irrigation . I got the idea just after thinking for few weeks ...but I am late . 🤣
Increasing efficiency is a natural trend of virtually all technology. Over the years the cost of solar cells has plummeted while efficiency has shot up; that's only one example. Just recently for the first time slightly more energy was produced than consumed in a fusion process; it's still a long way but at least theres some promise. Ending our reliance on fossil fuels will be very gradual, but we can't turn back unless we want to die.
it dosnt matter what i want, its a matter of cost vs output as needs change maybe it will be more cost effective, but the system should be designed in such a way that allows all plants to receive light simultaneously
not only far more expensive, but the plants grow much slower, because they receive less light they only get light near the top of the cycle, not all the time it would only be worth it if space was very limited and food very scarce
the plants get less light because they have to wait to be cycled to the top this results in smaller plants, less output compared with horizontal setups where each plant receives light all day plus the initial setup cost is far more expensive
I'm actually interested how this will affect the flavor of the product. Certainly the aspect of wind, altitude and a more monotonous light cycle will affect the plant, and therefor the end flavor.
going vertical doesn't increase the amount of light available. it just helps you compete with rival organisms. towers cast shadows. we already have some symbiosis with trees. i think these are snake oil. they look futuristic so people assume they'll be good. When you see things made of metal,glass plastic , it resonates with an expectation forged in the fossil fuel age ,ie the power of EROEI >10:1 .
It looks like the food has to be harvested by hand. Can't exactly drive combine harvesters through the building. Oh and look at all those moving parts that are going to require maintenance. The cost of these foods will maybe be 10X more than normal food. Allow me to predict the future: Singapore will continue to import over 90% of its food for the foreseeable future. The situation could become worse, due to its significant population growth.
>>" who arent just sitting on their computers complaining about this." the limiting factor in getting off renewables is public opinion, hence demand into the free market, or voting demand of politicians. I could work on this sort of thing, but I dont think there's no shortage there, just a shortage of societal will (resources for R&D) ( there are cases where people still drive to work where teleworking is possible and i can probably do more in my own field by encouraging the latter )
A forest to protect as a ecosystem with a relate to carbon in reduce by a amount to a point of a carbon as a less in a country. A national policy to grow in Britain to increase in a number as to scale of forest.
There's no need for caps or the negative attitude. The world isn't ruled by companies, it's rules by people with ideas. The moment we stop to think about the negative ones and start focusing on the positive ideas is when we move forward. Besides, it's not as if we aren't seeing it. It's a prototype, and if it works I'm sure it'll be used.
actually watch the video there not "towers" theres no shadow cast walter0bz I'm a farmer and this is the future. I work as an OG biodynamic farmer and i am all for cities and other metropolitan areas who can't rely on sourcing there food from outside sources, think about the effect shipping goods to the city has. Besides other then us Organic famers nobody treats soil with respect and honestly this may fix that as well...
>>", by scientists and engineers who arent just sitting on their computers complaining about this. " i'm complaining now because people obviously didn't complain enough. we knew about these problems in the 1980s and we still have a growing population dependant on a finite resource. One of those factors is 100% avoidable. Some say we have to wait for the resources to start running out before we find alternatives? ... crazy because we'll have less to spare for R&D -basic survival will be harder
Birth rate reduction is a natural trend of industrialisation that can be seen through statistics. Development also means more access to sex education so people know to use condoms and birth control. How can we ethically hold down poor countries? And while getting countries developed means more resources per person, it also means each person will be more productive; therefore parents will not need so many children, and some may opt not to have them at all.
Fossil fuels are the reason we urbanized so much in the first place. What are all these people in cities actually going to be doing in future... Does it even make sense to concentrate so much without them? going back to living off what falls out of the sky, wouldn't it make more sense to spread out again. Theres only one way vertical farms would make sense to me - if we got fusion (that would change everything)
Since you've really strayed quite far from the original topic and I honestly don't have the time to prolong this discussion, all I can say is I completely understand and respect your point of view. While I could never claim to have all the answers for humanity's problems, I hold on to optimism and faith in our ingenuity because it's gotten us so far and allowed us to defy nature in so many ways, and it's my sincere hope we don't fall into another Dark Ages...
>>". Ending our reliance on fossil fuels will be very gradual, but we can't turn back unless we want to die." - its not a question of what we want, its a question of what will happen. Reasonable estimates I read starts with population before the industrial revolution, multiplies it for "having more knowledge", then divides it for the damage we've done. This puts carrying capacity between 0.5-2billioin. So i'm an optimist, i'll say 2billion, which means some multiple of WW2 level misery * 80years
I have not been getting information about the gas that was discovered under water in israel I . believe there was mixed feelings as to ownership of the valuable commodity
vertical farming is only worth it if space is very limited the crops grown in this setup will be inferior to horizontal farming because of reduced light getting to them
>>"Increasing efficiency is a natural trend of virtually all technology." But thats under fossil fueled conditions, where we can fast forward. technology is just another ordered form of matter , like life, that maximizes entropy. Nature doesn't *need* human beings to use the sunlight. Everything you think of as technology is specialization to fossil fueled condtions. Material choices. Nature is built of the most abundant/versatile elements already. high information content.
1st world status means more resources per person. controlling birth rate is about saving resources. you're basically saying, "to save resource, we need more resources per person". To give everyone on earth a 1st world standard of living would take 5x what we have, and we face the opposite process, how to make do with less
>>". Over the years the cost of solar cells has plummeted while efficiency has shot up;" - if this was true why are the markets freaking out and the economies collapsing. The market requires growth - you could sell solar panels and grow the economy until every building and every desert was covered, maybe start throwing them into orbit or suspend them above the clouds in baloons.. build a dyson sphere.. I think we're getting a clear market signal we've hit the peak and its impossible
and i'm not just "sitting on my computer complaining" I've made conscious decisions to avoid car dependance. where i live & work. I've used my tech skills for the maximum demand society gave. I'm spending spare time trying to explain issues to people who haven't heard of them. IRL i know people who dont even (a) understand oil is FINITE (b) know how important it is to industry. (c) didn't know there was a population boom. SOMEONE needs to spread the message. TV and formal education don't work.
i beleive you'd be better off covering the buildings in PV cells and not trying to stick square pegs in round holes by taking plants further out of their environment / adapting cities to do something they weren't designed for
"the resources just dont exist" There are millions of asteroids out there for the taking that can potentially give us all the metals and minerals we could ever need if we can make space mining cheap, safe, and profitable. If we can make solar cheap, highly efficient and maybe put it in space the Sun can give us energy for millions of years. Even further, if we manage to master fusion itself our energy issues could disappear altogether.
Good idea, however, you cannot replace the minerals the plants uptake from the soil that the human body needs.. I would be curious to know what the nutrient value of hydro grown vs soil grown....
Hydroponic and aquaponic growers usually add trace elements and minerals to the water. If the plant is healthy and colorful it is likely nutritious. A grower (whether soil or hydroponics) would want to ensure that the plant is healthy and getting everything it needs by adding amendments including trace minerals. I am sure the nutrient profile could be different between the two though and would be interested in reading more into the issue you raise.
>>"These aren't "extraordinary claims" they're things that have been worked on for decades and still are." all sorts of projects get funding because they sound like good ideas, they might have spin offs, or many agree knowledge for its own sake is good. I call these extraordinary claims because they claim our advancements are independent of the fossil fuel boost - when EROEI was ballpark 10:1. What can technology do once that energy is gone
aren't building materials more scarce than soil. these might make sense in extreme corner cases but they wont scale. towers cast shadows, and the area of light captured is limited by the area of the building . if you had fusion for powering grow lights maybe. we just have to accept earth has a carrying capacity and stay within it.
to carlsm95 your right on but good for you to know we already do have all the answers when it comes to food fuel and clean water for a much larger population on this planet. Thorium LFTR reactor , Omega Garden's Farmdominium, and graphene desalination. cree has some new led's that are 273 lpw that came out in feb. and for cheap space travel breaking low earth orbit which will be 100 times cheaper will make space travel happen much quicker. and for actual space travel use vasmir propulsion paired with thorium reactors, we could mine our whole solar system even go to new solar systems.
Not convinced by vertical farms at all. nature already invented trees, whch grow vertically, they build themselves using renewable resources and sunlight. [1] thorium is slightly promising, but, "dont count your chickens before they're hatched" - uranium was supposed to be 'electricity too cheap to meter' already. [2] thorium is worth pursuing to keep the overpopulation surviving, but we should not aim for a population so high that we need nuclear power for basic survival. Target carrying capacity should be measured with *pure renewables* - solar,wind., no more. [3]"mismanagement" - we must accept that we disagree on how to live , for example some people want to eat meat, some want to be vegetarians.. etc. we cannot acheive 100% efficiency. we are not like ants, chickens ina battery farm or living in the matrix. to lead a fullfilling life you need spare resources to experiment. we must factor in the inefficiency of 'freedom' into carrying capacity .
you should really watch the videos all of them without judgement really. And the reason for thorium lftr reactors not making it in the 70s wasn't because it didn't work it was going to take profits away from the existing nuclear market watch the whole 5 min thorium video.
Plus say we did all of these tech we would be able to live in a much smaller land mass and let more of nature to go back to just that. and what resources are we exactly running out of we have plenty of rare earth metals. Greed and people in control are the problem.
its not a question of tech.. its a question of resources. compare microprocessors to solar panels - panels aren't difficult to engineer.. the issue is how much land, placement, how much energy you get back vs fossil fuels. Compare the complexity of a drilling rig vs a wind farm Technology doesn't increase carrying capacity.. natures' nanomachines are more efficient than anything we've engineered, because we evolved to use them. technology was just a way of using non-renewable resources. after 200 years of that, people have over-blown expectations. then people promise a bright future with fancy marketting videos, or schemes to vote for ... whatever. We have to under-estimate. Sustainable carrying capacity can only be measured by switching off all the non-renewables and *measuring* how well we get on (eg , do a global trial run..)
okay apparently you didn't watch or look up any of the listed this I was talking about. We will never run out of electricty we will very shortly in the next five years have thorium reactors figured completely out. most problems can be run down to either resources or power. We can have plenty of food by artificially producing all food needed on very very small plots of land vertically up and vertically down. same for placement of man kind we can build much bigger buildings up and down to house comfortably tons of people. And water if we recycle most of what we use and desalinate then we are completely fine. and you can completely automate both.
Of course CO2 emission due to transportation will be reduced. But more than that, the existing land that was used for farming can be converted to forest. So that at least we can restore the trees that were cut since the beginning of farming. Every nation must promote vertical farming to support reforestation.
Agree.
@@richardgoode5314 (“The research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% - an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined - and still feed the world.”) josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Accepted%20Manuscript.pdf
Joseph Poore headed up an Oxford study involving 116 countries over 5 years, the most comprehensive study ever on agriculture & environment and the study concluded that. "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use."
“It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,”
“Avoiding consumption of animal products delivers far better environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainable meat and dairy,” www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/veganism-environmental-impact-planet-reduced-plant-based-diet-humans-study-a8378631.html
OUTRAGEOUSLY SMART!! Very good for people and the earth!
Don't know if person who posted this is still reading comments but here it goes. I sincerely appreciate all who are heading towards vertical farming. Sadly most operations are no more than a political stunt to get funding with little regard for crop yield, nutrient density, or sharing this abundance of food through local social entities. When I had an idea to go vertical back in the mid to late 70's everyone thought I was crazy. Being one of 15 children we did not let anything go to waste. Not even waste. All of our construction materials was recycled=FREE. Long time rain water collector=Free. Farm, restaurant, school lunch room waste=FREE compost. all plastic cups, trays and so on from our recycle department= FREE.Organic stores and restaurants request certain veggies= zero waste criteria met. The cost of vertical farming is so low every farmer should use a portion of his land to do this. Save the open fields for field crops. We hold most Guinness and world records for produce . secret= perfect nutritional balance and also microbial balance. Highest quality, tops in yield, lowest possible operational costs. Very comfortable to donate to food banks, churches etc. Best job in the world for veterans coming home. peaceful.
Excellent agricultural progress its like industialization
70% to 90% less water. can easily be done without pesticides or chemical fertilizers. no worrying about soil degradation. if this is scaled up it can solve most of our agricultural problems and its associated environmental problems.
People may not realize this, but Singapore just kicked in Agricultural Technology with this move. It's actually way cheaper than the way we do it, with Frankenfoods that fuck up our health. You wanna solve the health care issue, switch from Industrial farming to this and you've solved more than a quarter of the issue.
An excellent step forward! Best of luck to them!
great innovation, so many good things to come from it - especially if they can manage to go completely organic.
just hopefully it won't become an issue of "we can farm anywhere so let's industrialise/urbanise rural areas."
guess we'll just have to wait and see how it develops in the next few decades
This method with the cycling of plants is only one method, I'm sure in the future more efficient methods will be found.
Vertical farming is not urgent now, but by around 2040-2050, when the world population starts hitting 10 billion, much of the environment has been destroyed, and food prices rise, it will be MUCH cheaper to grow food in skyscrapers near future megacities as it cuts down on transport and reduces dependency on food exporters. This IS the future whether you want it or not.
Industrial Farming as in the way Mega Corporations farm. Vertical Farming, yes, it uses artificial methods, it's still more natural than Industrial Farming, because it eliminates the need for any harmful chemicals are a lot of water. All the plants get is what the plants need to grow into tasty food. But I do understand what you're saying though.
It's expensive now but continuous innovation and increased efficiency always makes new technologies cheaper
I explain the teleworking thing to people IRL and they give me this ..
-"people have to be in the same room for the creative process"
-"people need to socialize"
so i have more work to do to change peoples mind on the priority of getting out of petrol cars, it seems. Or maybe develop new kinds of collaborative software.
I've contributed to the Rust language which i believe will ease collaboration on efficient software compared to C++ (cleaner modularity/composability)
(cont) Im not even talking specifically about vertical farming anymore, I'm talking about any and all advancements that will increase food and energy production without ruining the environment.
The issues you raise are valid and still trying to be resolved everyday, by scientists and engineers who arent just sitting on their computers complaining about this. We will eventually reach a crisis point but one which will only accelerate these advancements, and I have faith in human ingenuity.
Singapore is amazing. Wow.
Wow. I had same idea of moving the racks to ensure all plants get sunlight so that grow lights can be eliminated and reduced piping and energy for irrigation .
I got the idea just after thinking for few weeks ...but I am late . 🤣
Increasing efficiency is a natural trend of virtually all technology. Over the years the cost of solar cells has plummeted while efficiency has shot up; that's only one example. Just recently for the first time slightly more energy was produced than consumed in a fusion process; it's still a long way but at least theres some promise. Ending our reliance on fossil fuels will be very gradual, but we can't turn back unless we want to die.
it dosnt matter what i want, its a matter of cost vs output
as needs change maybe it will be more cost effective, but the system should be designed in such a way that allows all plants to receive light simultaneously
Are you saying that this is not industrial farming? I have been farming since 1952 and It looks pretty industrial to me.
not only far more expensive, but the plants grow much slower, because they receive less light
they only get light near the top of the cycle, not all the time
it would only be worth it if space was very limited and food very scarce
the plants get less light because they have to wait to be cycled to the top
this results in smaller plants, less output compared with horizontal setups where each plant receives light all day
plus the initial setup cost is far more expensive
UN and WHO should invest these tecniques in Refugee Camps to combat famine where it is truly needed. Quite possibly Jordan Turkey and Nigeria
People to a support the world food programme.
I'd love to adapt this technique for growing Wasabi, i'm currently growing in fixed position gutters.
I'm actually interested how this will affect the flavor of the product. Certainly the aspect of wind, altitude and a more monotonous light cycle will affect the plant, and therefor the end flavor.
going vertical doesn't increase the amount of light available. it just helps you compete with rival organisms.
towers cast shadows.
we already have some symbiosis with trees.
i think these are snake oil. they look futuristic so people assume they'll be good. When you see things made of metal,glass plastic , it resonates with an expectation forged in the fossil fuel age ,ie the power of EROEI >10:1 .
Yeah, it's good to at least make an effort. And the farming technique can perhaps fill a niche for high value crops.
It looks like the food has to be harvested by hand. Can't exactly drive combine harvesters through the building. Oh and look at all those moving parts that are going to require maintenance. The cost of these foods will maybe be 10X more than normal food. Allow me to predict the future: Singapore will continue to import over 90% of its food for the foreseeable future. The situation could become worse, due to its significant population growth.
>>" who arent just sitting on their computers complaining about this."
the limiting factor in getting off renewables is public opinion, hence demand into the free market, or voting demand of politicians. I could work on this sort of thing, but I dont think there's no shortage there, just a shortage of societal will (resources for R&D)
( there are cases where people still drive to work where teleworking is possible and i can probably do more in my own field by encouraging the latter )
In the longer term, vertical farming is far superior. That is what matters.
A forest to protect as a ecosystem with a relate to carbon in reduce by a amount to a point of a carbon as a less in a country. A national policy to grow in Britain to increase in a number as to scale of forest.
There's no need for caps or the negative attitude. The world isn't ruled by companies, it's rules by people with ideas. The moment we stop to think about the negative ones and start focusing on the positive ideas is when we move forward. Besides, it's not as if we aren't seeing it. It's a prototype, and if it works I'm sure it'll be used.
What kind of plants?
actually watch the video there not "towers" theres no shadow cast walter0bz I'm a farmer and this is the future. I work as an OG biodynamic farmer and i am all for cities and other metropolitan areas who can't rely on sourcing there food from outside sources, think about the effect shipping goods to the city has. Besides other then us Organic famers nobody treats soil with respect and honestly this may fix that as well...
SpiritBear12
or maybe even down the sides of building? cool concept with lots of creating to do! :)
I want to ask one question , Is this really helping in reducing air pollution
>>", by scientists and engineers who arent just sitting on their computers complaining about this. "
i'm complaining now because people obviously didn't complain enough. we knew about these problems in the 1980s and we still have a growing population dependant on a finite resource.
One of those factors is 100% avoidable.
Some say we have to wait for the resources to start running out before we find alternatives? ... crazy because we'll have less to spare for R&D -basic survival will be harder
So awesome!
I love farming and like to grow Hydroponic Lettuce & etc on my Land in China Hainan Wenchang..
Goodnice ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Birth rate reduction is a natural trend of industrialisation that can be seen through statistics. Development also means more access to sex education so people know to use condoms and birth control. How can we ethically hold down poor countries?
And while getting countries developed means more resources per person, it also means each person will be more productive; therefore parents will not need so many children, and some may opt not to have them at all.
Fossil fuels are the reason we urbanized so much in the first place.
What are all these people in cities actually going to be doing in future...
Does it even make sense to concentrate so much without them? going back to living off what falls out of the sky, wouldn't it make more sense to spread out again.
Theres only one way vertical farms would make sense to me - if we got fusion (that would change everything)
What type of plants can be grown in this technique
Since you've really strayed quite far from the original topic and I honestly don't have the time to prolong this discussion, all I can say is I completely understand and respect your point of view. While I could never claim to have all the answers for humanity's problems, I hold on to optimism and faith in our ingenuity because it's gotten us so far and allowed us to defy nature in so many ways, and it's my sincere hope we don't fall into another Dark Ages...
Will this work for Rice ?
ye you can with some modular changes
Rice has high demand
Yes... we can!!!
I remember Jacque Fresco mentioning these.
>>". Ending our reliance on fossil fuels will be very gradual, but we can't turn back unless we want to die."
- its not a question of what we want, its a question of what will happen.
Reasonable estimates I read starts with population before the industrial revolution, multiplies it for "having more knowledge", then divides it for the damage we've done. This puts carrying capacity between 0.5-2billioin. So i'm an optimist, i'll say 2billion, which means some multiple of WW2 level misery * 80years
I have not been getting information about the gas that was discovered under water in israel I . believe there was mixed feelings as to ownership of the valuable commodity
vertical farming is only worth it if space is very limited
the crops grown in this setup will be inferior to horizontal farming because of reduced light getting to them
>>"Increasing efficiency is a natural trend of virtually all technology."
But thats under fossil fueled conditions, where we can fast forward.
technology is just another ordered form of matter , like life, that maximizes entropy. Nature doesn't *need* human beings to use the sunlight. Everything you think of as technology is specialization to fossil fueled condtions. Material choices. Nature is built of the most abundant/versatile elements already. high information content.
1st world status means more resources per person.
controlling birth rate is about saving resources.
you're basically saying, "to save resource, we need more resources per person".
To give everyone on earth a 1st world standard of living would take 5x what we have, and we face the opposite process, how to make do with less
This is only the beginning. When energy becomes cheap this approach will explode.
People! This is not just an idea when it already produced tons of food.
>>". Over the years the cost of solar cells has plummeted while efficiency has shot up;"
- if this was true why are the markets freaking out and the economies collapsing.
The market requires growth - you could sell solar panels and grow the economy until every building and every desert was covered, maybe start throwing them into orbit or suspend them above the clouds in baloons.. build a dyson sphere.. I think we're getting a clear market signal we've hit the peak and its impossible
and i'm not just "sitting on my computer complaining"
I've made conscious decisions to avoid car dependance. where i live & work. I've used my tech skills for the maximum demand society gave.
I'm spending spare time trying to explain issues to people who haven't heard of them. IRL i know people who dont even (a) understand oil is FINITE (b) know how important it is to industry. (c) didn't know there was a population boom. SOMEONE needs to spread the message. TV and formal education don't work.
i beleive you'd be better off covering the buildings in PV cells and not trying to stick square pegs in round holes by taking plants further out of their environment / adapting cities to do something they weren't designed for
"the resources just dont exist"
There are millions of asteroids out there for the taking that can potentially give us all the metals and minerals we could ever need if we can make space mining cheap, safe, and profitable. If we can make solar cheap, highly efficient and maybe put it in space the Sun can give us energy for millions of years. Even further, if we manage to master fusion itself our energy issues could disappear altogether.
As the Spartans said: "If."
Elparita hm art.dimensi
Very good luck and healthy always
Expensive than traditional
With a farm in a outdoor to grow crops for a increase in the population.
and they can get higher and higher!
Good idea, however, you cannot replace the minerals the plants uptake from the soil that the human body needs.. I would be curious to know what the nutrient value of hydro grown vs soil grown....
Hydroponic and aquaponic growers usually add trace elements and minerals to the water. If the plant is healthy and colorful it is likely nutritious. A grower (whether soil or hydroponics) would want to ensure that the plant is healthy and getting everything it needs by adding amendments including trace minerals. I am sure the nutrient profile could be different between the two though and would be interested in reading more into the issue you raise.
Balance to diet for a person to be in a food.
>>"These aren't "extraordinary claims" they're things that have been worked on for decades and still are."
all sorts of projects get funding because they sound like good ideas, they might have spin offs, or many agree knowledge for its own sake is good.
I call these extraordinary claims because they claim our advancements are independent of the fossil fuel boost - when EROEI was ballpark 10:1. What can technology do once that energy is gone
BUT MUST BE ORGANIC OR NOT AT ALL PERIOD!!!!!!!NO EXCEPTIONS
Can this is available in india
why is this patented? he wants "to the sell the technology"? its an ancient system, damn people are greedy
bem organizado
v.good idea if you dont have space to build farms
LOVE,
aren't building materials more scarce than soil.
these might make sense in extreme corner cases but they wont scale.
towers cast shadows, and the area of light captured is limited by the area of the building .
if you had fusion for powering grow lights maybe.
we just have to accept earth has a carrying capacity and stay within it.
to carlsm95 your right on but good for you to know we already do have all the answers when it comes to food fuel and clean water for a much larger population on this planet. Thorium LFTR reactor , Omega Garden's Farmdominium, and graphene desalination. cree has some new led's that are 273 lpw that came out in feb. and for cheap space travel breaking low earth orbit which will be 100 times cheaper will make space travel happen much quicker. and for actual space travel use vasmir propulsion paired with thorium reactors, we could mine our whole solar system even go to new solar systems.
Not convinced by vertical farms at all. nature already invented trees, whch grow vertically, they build themselves using renewable resources and sunlight.
[1] thorium is slightly promising, but, "dont count your chickens before they're hatched" - uranium was supposed to be 'electricity too cheap to meter' already.
[2] thorium is worth pursuing to keep the overpopulation surviving, but we should not aim for a population so high that we need nuclear power for basic survival.
Target carrying capacity should be measured with *pure renewables* - solar,wind., no more.
[3]"mismanagement" - we must accept that we disagree on how to live , for example some people want to eat meat, some want to be vegetarians.. etc. we cannot acheive 100% efficiency. we are not like ants, chickens ina battery farm or living in the matrix.
to lead a fullfilling life you need spare resources to experiment.
we must factor in the inefficiency of 'freedom' into carrying capacity .
you should really watch the videos all of them without judgement really. And the reason for thorium lftr reactors not making it in the 70s wasn't because it didn't work it was going to take profits away from the existing nuclear market watch the whole 5 min thorium video.
Plus say we did all of these tech we would be able to live in a much smaller land mass and let more of nature to go back to just that. and what resources are we exactly running out of we have plenty of rare earth metals. Greed and people in control are the problem.
its not a question of tech.. its a question of resources. compare microprocessors to solar panels - panels aren't difficult to engineer.. the issue is how much land, placement, how much energy you get back vs fossil fuels. Compare the complexity of a drilling rig vs a wind farm
Technology doesn't increase carrying capacity.. natures' nanomachines are more efficient than anything we've engineered, because we evolved to use them.
technology was just a way of using non-renewable resources. after 200 years of that, people have over-blown expectations. then people promise a bright future with fancy marketting videos, or schemes to vote for ... whatever.
We have to under-estimate. Sustainable carrying capacity can only be measured by switching off all the non-renewables and *measuring* how well we get on (eg , do a global trial run..)
okay apparently you didn't watch or look up any of the listed this I was talking about. We will never run out of electricty we will very shortly in the next five years have thorium reactors figured completely out. most problems can be run down to either resources or power. We can have plenty of food by artificially producing all food needed on very very small plots of land vertically up and vertically down. same for placement of man kind we can build much bigger buildings up and down to house comfortably tons of people. And water if we recycle most of what we use and desalinate then we are completely fine. and you can completely automate both.
how the fuck do you patent a rotating wrack?
+Adam Chester ask apple, they patented rectangle shape
Recycle Water!?! :P
We can get meat too when we make grain farm and stuff :D and animals in skyscrapers dafuq :D
Hola
T
land problem LOL aahahhahah