Hi I'm trying to set up a small hydroponics system for my house on the roof top of the 16th floor.do you think it's possible to grow there? could you please help me set it up thanx.and also I wouldn't mind setting up a green house for it as well. firstname.lastname@example.org
*🌾 🎋🌿🌷The book describes how to build a home aquatponic gardening [Check Details Here >==>**https://t.co/Lrwi0vZuTr** ]. When following the instruction I feel like building my home gardening easily. The book also explains the theory of how such gardening works,.This system is really efficient eco-system taking advantage of miniaturized natural environment of symbiosis between fish and plants.*
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.
Yeah no yall got me messed up. If you can see, they are not using any safety, no gloves or nothing! So nobody knows if those guys ich their ass an pick your greens or get a cut an get blood on the greens. YEAH! Good job you guys! Real smart! #Osha
Gloves? You're too stupid to be true or maybe you're too young, that's why so dumb.
Gloves is need use but not for raw green. You're crazy stupid, you have to waste it, you should watch your veggies, fruits before you eating. It's simple. Even in natural, some bird even shit on the fruits, I saw it myself many times, but as long as no chemicals, it's no harm. So even their hands is dirty shit, it's no problem cause it not chemical, and you need wash your green veggies before you put on your mouth!!!
Second, you say if their cut their hand & blood run to veggies? How can someone silly like that, I can't even typing anymore. Go search google. When blood run out of human body, in case, the blood run to green veggies, but they're not harmful you cause after blood come out of body almost virus die, and you're also cook & boil veggies, so it doesn't matter.
If their blood run in to your body, it's harmful but the blood run outside, what the problems. Your IQ is 75 or you're troll haters. Bye
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.
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...
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.
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.
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..)
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.
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.
Not convinced by vertical farms at all. nature already invented trees, whch grow vertically, they build themselves using renewable resources and sunlight.
 thorium is slightly promising, but, "dont count your chickens before they're hatched" - uranium was supposed to be 'electricity too cheap to meter' already.
 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.
"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 .
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.
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...
"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.
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)
>>" 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 )
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.
>>", 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
>>"Ending our reliance on fossil fuels"
I read about all this explained in terms a child can understand in a kids book growing up in the 1980s. fusion..wind..solar..wave..temp-difference.. pics of futuristic vertical farms etc. today in 2013 nothing has changed. I beleive solar panels require resources that can't scale (silver etc), which is why they haven't domnated already. I think nature got it right with chlorophyll.
>>". 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
>>". 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
>>"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.
if i'm right , its simply impossible for the 3rd world to develop, the resources just dont exist.
They will try to consume the extra resources and the result will be war. india v china? usa v china ? or authoritarian oppresion. or civil wars everywhere.
(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.
Minus a catastrophic disaster, the human population will decline naturally from a peak of 9 or 10 billion due to sub-replacement fertility from increasing per capita productivity and increased automation, a trend already seen in highly developed countries. Unless we decide to slaughter everyone in third world countries, they can only follow this trend.
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.
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)
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
>>" Eventual abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of renewables is an inevitability"
what is not inevitable is that 7billion people will survive.
there's no law of nature that says this. There is only entropy that says life is bounded by the available energy, and everything decays, and there's observation of boom-bust processes in ecology like algae blooms, and mass extinctions...(we could be next, easily)
>>"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
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
The only way to reduce the birth rate will be to get third-world countries to first-world status, and thats only possible through major advancements in agriculture and energy. Eventual abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of renewables is an inevitability that can't be argued against if we want a future for our kids. These aren't "extraordinary claims" they're things that have been worked on for decades and still are. Scientists aren't complacent and they think in the long term.
we'll never feed 10billion without fossil fuels and with a damage environment. The future will be more like cambodia year zero (whether you want it or not), thats if we can't reverse the population boom with a drastically reduced birth rate. extraordinary claims about unproven technology dont help, they create complacency.
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 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
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.
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
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.
NO MORE NEED FOR HARMFUL CHEMICALS TO DRIVE AWAY PESTS AND WEEDS AND NO MORE NEED FOR G.M.O's TO WITHSTAND THE HARMFUL CHEMICALS, SO NO MORE MONEY FOR COMPANIES LIKE MONSANTOS....
THIS IS WHY WE WILL NOT SEE IT!!
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 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.
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 don't see any way that it could be so much more expensive. The cost of start up is high and electricity is your only real input that a land farm wouldn't have. The biggest advantage is the number of crops per year. In the end it is much better in my opinion. I am trying to find an investor who agrees with me. Join me at citybountydotorg
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.
It's not perfect yet ... but still better than GMO shit !! GMO is not worth the risk and the food is poor of quality and taste ... not to mention the long term side effects ... If you mess with DNA you will fuck up the entire ecosystem that took billions of years to grow
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