• Forester@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    28 days ago

    Initial upfront costs are heavy but you would be saving all of the transport and logistics costs for the lifetime of the facility. Aeroponics are also a lot less resource intense than growing in the dirt.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      27 days ago

      Has anyone broken down the difference in energy between artificially creating growing conditions in the middle of cities compared to just transporting the food from where it grows easily? Trains and ships which transport most food are incredibly energy efficient per ton transported

      Trains can transport one ton of goods 470 miles on one gallon of fuel and ships can transport one ton of goods 600 miles on one gallon of fuel. If a urban farm can produce one ton of food it needs to consume less than a few gallons of fuel’s worth of energy in lighting and other city-specific infrastructure in order to come out ahead of growing food where it grows best

    • blindsight@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 days ago

      Especially for some crops, like leafy greens. Having a semi-sterile environment can also mean pesticide-free crops. (Or at least, that’s my understanding).

      Way less water use and transport costs for a superior (fresher, postcode free) product.

      It only makes sense for some crops, though. Ain’t nobody growing watermelons or carrots in urban vertical farms.

          • Cypher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            26 days ago

            It does change your point because you need to look at the total energy cost, not just a single part.

            Transport costs are enormous. The land you’re talking about using could be used to generate even more power with renewables.