• theluddite@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No, I’m not. Moving things, even refrigerating them, takes so, so, so much less energy than replicating the literal sun for months. The sun gives you approximately 1,360 watts per square meter. That’s 117 million Joules of energy per day per square meter for the entire area of that operation, which conveniently happens to be very close to Joules in a gallon of gas (~120 million).

    In other words, for every single day, for every single square meter of an indoor operation, you need to use the equivalent amount of energy as is in a gallon of gas to grow things indoors. That’s ~4,000 gallons of gas (or the renewable equivalent) per day per acre, which is not that big of an operation.

    A quick google tells me that lettuce, probably the least energy intensive crop, can harvest about 10 tons per acre. According to the railroads, which might be a dubious source, a gallon of gas can move a ton of freight about 100 miles on a railroad. To move an entire acre’s worth of lettuce by train 3000 miles, approximately the entire width of the US, would use only 30 gallons of gas.

    Even if they’re exaggerating by a several orders of magnitude, there’s just no way for vertical farming to come out ahead on that.

    If you truck instead, a quick google tells me that a truck’s average fuel cost per mile is between 30 and 40 cents, and a truck can carry about 10 tons. In other words, moving our acre of lettuce takes about 1 gallon of gas per 10 miles. Even if we move that 3000 miles, we’re only using 300 gallons of gas (or the energy equivalent). Again compare that to using 4,000 gallons of gas per day on the vertical farms. Over a 2 month growing period, that comes out to 240,000 gallons of gas.

    In other words, trucking things all the way across the country uses 800x less energy than an indoor farm with 0 transportation costs would use to grow it.

    • kozy138
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is, you don’t need to reproduce the full power of the sun. All you need to produce, is the particular wavelengths of light which are absorbed best by the chlorophyll in the plants. And with modern LEDs, the power consumption is tiny.

      With wind, solar, and geogermal energy production, one could theoretically power, and regulate the temp/humidity in the facility with a net 0 carbon emissions. Not a few hundred thousand gallons of gas…

        • kozy138
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When the energy is essentially unlimited, who cares how much energy it uses. None of that energy is burning fossil fuels.

          Not mention all of the cost and resources saved on water, fertilizer, and the fact that you can grow all year round.

          • theluddite@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s fine, but energy is not unlimited and probably won’t be anytime soon. I think it’s important to understand the realities of indoor farming. I find many in environmental communities like this one labor under the same misapprehensions that I found in this thread, and as a result have an unrealistically charitable outlook on them.

            • kozy138
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              True, but renewable energy will be essentially unlimited at some point. Where as fossil fuels will never be.

              Also, we can use vertical tech in greenhouses for free sunlight. It doesn’t have to be a box warehouse.