Skip to main content
20 events
when toggle format what by license comment
S Oct 2 at 8:47 vote accept Felix Benning
Oct 1 at 11:02 answer added MSalters timeline score: 2
Feb 25, 2021 at 13:48 answer added Roger V. timeline score: 1
Feb 23, 2021 at 18:55 review Close votes
Feb 25, 2021 at 13:44
Feb 17, 2021 at 0:00 history tweeted twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/1361827708892758017
Feb 16, 2021 at 17:37 vote accept Felix Benning
S Oct 2 at 8:47
Feb 16, 2021 at 13:07 comment added John Doe I see your line of thinking. CookieNinjas answer does however raise the point that panels could be placed in locations unsuitable for agriculture (e.g. deserts), thereby not "wasting" space, although still requiring it. But yes, it would make sense to evaluate if the total land use is higher.
Feb 16, 2021 at 11:42 history edited Felix Benning CC BY-SA 4.0
more narrow focus
Feb 16, 2021 at 11:31 answer added CookieNinja timeline score: 4
Feb 16, 2021 at 11:27 comment added Polygnome @JohnW. You still need light, and light needs energy. If the power plant for the vertical farm needs more space then an equivalent, traditional field with the same yields then you don't actually save space. The interesting question is if solar panels + vertical farms together have less area footprint than a traditional field. Vertical farming is employed in Paris and Singapore, because space is at a premium there, but to my knowledge the energy comes from the grid. Vertical farming on a global scale only makes sense if energy production doesn't need more space than vertical farming saves.
Feb 16, 2021 at 11:19 comment added Felix Benning @JohnW. But you still need to light every floor there. So the question is how many square metres of solar panels you need to light one square metre of plants. If you only need $0.25m^2$ of solar panels per $m^2$ of plants, then you could do 4 floors with solar panels on top as a self contained system. If you need more solar panels, then you would have to place them somewhere else than on the roof and then you wouldn't really save land would you? I mean that is exactly the point of the question. Do you actually save land area? Or just seem to save it before considering electricity generation
Feb 16, 2021 at 11:14 comment added John Doe Are you also considering that vertical farms are not single floors, but often several layers of plants? I think one attractive aspect of vertical farms is the smaller total area footprint in countries with sparse/expensive land (e.g. Japan, Netherlands), because you can build several farms on top of each other, so to speak.
Feb 16, 2021 at 11:13 comment added Felix Benning @PM2Ring Would focusing on plants for agriculture help? I guess there is often a differentiation between leafy greens, vegetables and energy rich food (grain/rice/potatos) in vertical farming. So that would still leave multiple categories.
Feb 16, 2021 at 11:05 history edited Urb CC BY-SA 4.0
edited title
Feb 16, 2021 at 11:02 comment added Felix Benning @Polygnome sure, but this is more of an abstract - "is this a sensible thing to strive for in the future?" type of question, and ideally we want to get rid of any non renewable plants including nuclear in the relative near future. Fusion might change things again, but until then this seems quite relevant
Feb 16, 2021 at 10:58 history edited Felix Benning CC BY-SA 4.0
added 78 characters in body
Feb 16, 2021 at 10:52 comment added Polygnome Intriguing question. But do most vertical plant farms actually use solar power, or do they use other electricity sources, e.g. nuclear? If they are powered by electricity from the grid, they'll get a mix with only a small portion of solar energy.
Feb 16, 2021 at 10:47 history edited Qmechanic CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 64 characters in body; edited title
Feb 16, 2021 at 10:29 review First posts
Feb 16, 2021 at 10:33
Feb 16, 2021 at 10:26 history asked Felix Benning CC BY-SA 4.0