Housing I can see, but i’ve never really seen the appeal of vertical farms.
Even the cheapest possible high rise construction is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than some random patch of dirt. Your also going to have a problem using a lot of heavy machinery, which means a lot of unnecessary and very long hour hard labor. All of this to cut down on the energy used in transportation, but the energy needed to move the train car from the field to the city is tiny compared to even just harvesting and planting, much less growing things indoors or off season.
There are many potential economic benefits to vertical farms, but their primary appeal for many is to cut down on land usage to allow for more wildland to replace the farmland.
As far as I know vertical farms are always about growing crops not raising animals. Switching away from eating animals would already free enormous amounts of land for wilderness, without requiring that we stack farms for some reason.
Ok. Yes that is technically true, if everyone stopped eating meat it would also free up lots of agri land in theory. They arent competing ideas.
Eating meat made from crickets, from a non animal meat factory, etc are also possible ways for us to reduce land usage. None of that is really about vertical farms though, and none of that would address plant agri except for feed.
“Stacking farms ‘for some reason’” is an interesting and disrespectful way to engage with my comment providing a reason to do exactly that. That doesn’t give me a good indication that you’re here to engage in good faith.
My point is that vertical agriculture implies a plant based diet. We could already switch to a plant based diet and save most of our agricultural land. Vertical farming basically means getting light from somewhere other than the sun, as the upper floors block the sunlight. So it doesn’t really make sense, and won’t likely save any land. I’m happy to be shown otherwise!
Housing I can see, but i’ve never really seen the appeal of vertical farms.
Even the cheapest possible high rise construction is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive than some random patch of dirt. Your also going to have a problem using a lot of heavy machinery, which means a lot of unnecessary and very long hour hard labor. All of this to cut down on the energy used in transportation, but the energy needed to move the train car from the field to the city is tiny compared to even just harvesting and planting, much less growing things indoors or off season.
There are many potential economic benefits to vertical farms, but their primary appeal for many is to cut down on land usage to allow for more wildland to replace the farmland.
As far as I know vertical farms are always about growing crops not raising animals. Switching away from eating animals would already free enormous amounts of land for wilderness, without requiring that we stack farms for some reason.
Ok. Yes that is technically true, if everyone stopped eating meat it would also free up lots of agri land in theory. They arent competing ideas.
Eating meat made from crickets, from a non animal meat factory, etc are also possible ways for us to reduce land usage. None of that is really about vertical farms though, and none of that would address plant agri except for feed.
“Stacking farms ‘for some reason’” is an interesting and disrespectful way to engage with my comment providing a reason to do exactly that. That doesn’t give me a good indication that you’re here to engage in good faith.
My point is that vertical agriculture implies a plant based diet. We could already switch to a plant based diet and save most of our agricultural land. Vertical farming basically means getting light from somewhere other than the sun, as the upper floors block the sunlight. So it doesn’t really make sense, and won’t likely save any land. I’m happy to be shown otherwise!