All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mar 16th, '13, 09:53 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 12th, '06, 07:56
Posts: 17789
Images: 4
Location: Perth
Gender: Male
Blog: View Blog (1)
SolTun wrote:
Hi EB

earthbound wrote:
I don't know, I still don't get those things.. There's enough vacant land in that picture that if you planted up 50% of that vacant land with high intensity growing at ground level you would produce the same amount of food without having to build a giant glass dome with rotating internals.

Why is it that we always assume that a more high tech approach will be a solution to things like food production. The levels of embodied energy going into producing something like that, along with the constant energy costs of having all the internal plant growing areas rotating, are never going to offset the food produced..


Maybe you didn't read the full articel ?
The Greenhouse or Plentagon is being powerd with waste to do that effectively with all the infrastructure to pipe the heat/CO2 you need a compact building for it to be cost effective.
Also the central location makes the produce short traveld
Sweden have plenty of room or space available to grow like you suggest, but it's subarctic climate so a green house and heating, is needed for year around growth

cheers


Hey Soltun
I was talking about the vacant land in the picture, and judging by this picture, there's plenty of land.
Attachment:
vlvi3hev6rruex8n0d9ong.jpg
vlvi3hev6rruex8n0d9ong.jpg [ 51.16 KiB | Viewed 6052 times ]


Plus the fact that I really just don't think that purpose built multi-story buildings are the answer to efficient food production. The embodied energy going into construction and then the running of the building means that you are never going to get anywhere near close to calorie for calorie in and out.

Just as I don't think our current factory farming methods are the slightest bit sustainable, I think this skyscraper type farming is also not at all sustainable. And if we are going to be encouraging and handing out awards to farming methods that are sustainable and positive then I feel it really needs to be things like this guy: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15661 not some latest techno idea.

Remembering with the food miles "thing", we need to be careful not to get too caught up in growing stuff locally at almost any cost. Often it works out to be far more efficient growing things in other areas and transporting them http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... s_dilemma/

I'm all for local growing and using waste streams of other industries or businesses, but I just don;t see these skyscraper ideas as ever being a viable solution to our need for more efficient and sustainable food supplies.

_________________
www.havehomewilltravel.com
Life on the road


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
    Advertisement
 
PostPosted: Mar 16th, '13, 11:31 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Nov 10th, '12, 09:27
Posts: 2667
Gender: Male
Are you human?: maybe
Location: Vic
They arent EB, they are proof of eductaed people not being as smart as thier certificates say they are and proof of people grabbing at straws.

With nature is always the best way, i have seen some lovely results on TV of a farmer here who is doing what that guy was talking of, using chickens after the cows to clean up parasites, etc, i think it may have been on landline.
The other thing farmers should look at in Aus is growing in native grasses, im not sure of the details on that, but apparently gets great results too.

Ive never been a fan of the whole "rip out the forest and plant fields of things", i think that things should be planted amongst the forest, biodiversity almost always makes up for a lack of sun, etc. - i have heard that rainforest sprouts survive on no sunlight because there is basically a huge mycelium the size of said forests that interconnect all plants, so the canopy plants end up feeding the sapling all they need and then no light is needed - they dont need to make thier own energy. how true this is i dont know, maybe its only certain places/forests.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 16th, '13, 11:44 
Yavimaya wrote:
i have seen some lovely results on TV of a farmer here who is doing what that guy was talking of, using chickens after the cows to clean up parasites, etc, i think it may have been on landline.

That'd probably be Joel Salatin...and his "Polyface Farm" techniques... or someone that adopted them...


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 16th, '13, 15:23 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Nov 10th, '12, 09:27
Posts: 2667
Gender: Male
Are you human?: maybe
Location: Vic
Not sure who it was, but he just had his herd locked into a tiny area with a brickies stringline, very tame cows. :thumbleft:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 16th, '13, 15:31 
Sure he wasn't "break fencing"... with an electric fence??


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 16th, '13, 16:47 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Nov 10th, '12, 09:27
Posts: 2667
Gender: Male
Are you human?: maybe
Location: Vic
ahh it might have been.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 16th, '13, 18:57 
Offline
Legend Member
Legend Member

Joined: Nov 14th, '10, 00:16
Posts: 511
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: S Norway
earthbound wrote:
SolTun wrote:
Hi EB

earthbound wrote:
I don't know, I still don't get those things.. There's enough vacant land in that picture that if you planted up 50% of that vacant land with high intensity growing at ground level you would produce the same amount of food without having to build a giant glass dome with rotating internals.

Why is it that we always assume that a more high tech approach will be a solution to things like food production. The levels of embodied energy going into producing something like that, along with the constant energy costs of having all the internal plant growing areas rotating, are never going to offset the food produced..


Maybe you didn't read the full articel ?
The Greenhouse or Plentagon is being powerd with waste to do that effectively with all the infrastructure to pipe the heat/CO2 you need a compact building for it to be cost effective.
Also the central location makes the produce short traveld
Sweden have plenty of room or space available to grow like you suggest, but it's subarctic climate so a green house and heating, is needed for year around growth

cheers


Hey Soltun
I was talking about the vacant land in the picture, and judging by this picture, there's plenty of land.
Attachment:
vlvi3hev6rruex8n0d9ong.jpg


Plus the fact that I really just don't think that purpose built multi-story buildings are the answer to efficient food production. The embodied energy going into construction and then the running of the building means that you are never going to get anywhere near close to calorie for calorie in and out.

Just as I don't think our current factory farming methods are the slightest bit sustainable, I think this skyscraper type farming is also not at all sustainable. And if we are going to be encouraging and handing out awards to farming methods that are sustainable and positive then I feel it really needs to be things like this guy: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=15661 not some latest techno idea.

Remembering with the food miles "thing", we need to be careful not to get too caught up in growing stuff locally at almost any cost. Often it works out to be far more efficient growing things in other areas and transporting them http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... s_dilemma/

I'm all for local growing and using waste streams of other industries or businesses, but I just don;t see these skyscraper ideas as ever being a viable solution to our need for more efficient and sustainable food supplies.


Again I don't think you got the full grasp (read it all)
The food production is only a part of the hole building, It's mainly offices and they can't be put in the fields.
I agree in most of what you say, but I do think it's nice that buildings like offices/homes get this type of green integration, instead of just building the offices.
It would not have been buildt as a stand alone greenhouse.

cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 16th, '13, 20:07 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: May 6th, '11, 12:06
Posts: 12195
Gender: Male
Location: Northern NSW
Where do I get a three handled shovel from? ...... Id much rather dig holes in company :D

_________________
~2010/2011~
~2012/2013~
~2014~
~Backyard farming~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 17th, '13, 03:15 
Offline
Bordering on Legend
Bordering on Legend

Joined: Nov 22nd, '11, 03:31
Posts: 334
Gender: Male
Are you human?: Predominantly
Location: Dallas area, Texas, USA
People tend not to be ready for "sea changes" in their lives, and yes I'm resorting to extreme understatement to make a point. I see all these skyscrapers that could "easily" have food production going on within them, even if only to a minor "decorative" degree, including the 16-story building I work in now, and for a moment I wonder "why? when it would be so easy for people to---" then I remember that things are the way they are for a reason, and and that reason is usually a good one.

Food is cheap.

Yes, I know, I know - but I'm not talking about from a global perspective. We don't do thing "globally", we do them locally, and I'm speaking from the heart of the DFW multi-giga-urbano-"Metroplex", where even with skyrocketing grocery prices it STILL (sadly? uh, no...) makes no economic sense for people who earn between $40 and $400+ dollars an hour (that assumption based on them being in a tall building and having a window view) to grow food in their offices.

The only possible way that I know of to justify such an effort - especially on a building-wide scale - would be from a "prepper" viewpoint (as opposed to a "current market economics" one), and though growing, that mindset just isn't widespread, and IMHO will continue not to be.

Should a total economic meltdown and collapse happen, which many of us fear is on the way, then YES, a great many people will look back in hindsight and ruefully think some version of "if only I had taken advantage of that little unused corner of my office that was full of empty space and light!", but shy of the sea change of such a collapse that's simply not going to happen.

And it won't happen afterwards either, both because people will no longer be able to afford to, and because will they likely no longer have access to their old high-rise offices.

So I predict that "home systems" will continue to be the rage amongst the tiny minority of us engaging in their construction and use, while business/industrial/office systems will remain extremely rare one-off oddities. And I include the Chicago O'Hare airport in that statement (http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2011 ... irport.php).

You can add this to the long list of things I'd love to be wrong about.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 17th, '13, 08:29 
Offline
A posting God
A posting God

Joined: Nov 10th, '12, 09:27
Posts: 2667
Gender: Male
Are you human?: maybe
Location: Vic
As far as food as the primary thing goes, i would agree Shel, however singapore is diving head first into greening its city and highrise buildings, It has come quite a long way from 30 years ago and they say they have just started.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 17th, '13, 11:04 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 12th, '06, 07:56
Posts: 17789
Images: 4
Location: Perth
Gender: Male
Blog: View Blog (1)
Come on Soltun.. I've read it about 4 times now and I can;t see the mention of offices anywhere, i'm not gunna read it again.... :lol:

_________________
www.havehomewilltravel.com
Life on the road


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 17th, '13, 11:13 
Offline
Legend Member
Legend Member

Joined: Nov 14th, '10, 00:16
Posts: 511
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: S Norway
Hi EB
Cut/paste from here
http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/pressroom/ ... ide-174157

The Plantagon Greenhouse - updated Linköping type with greenhouse and office parts combined. View from the north side, showing the side of the building hosting office and commercial areas.

cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 17th, '13, 11:15 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 12th, '06, 07:56
Posts: 17789
Images: 4
Location: Perth
Gender: Male
Blog: View Blog (1)
Hey thats cheating.... Different page, and different building totally... :)

_________________
www.havehomewilltravel.com
Life on the road


Top
 Profile Personal album  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mar 17th, '13, 11:31 
Offline
Legend Member
Legend Member

Joined: Nov 14th, '10, 00:16
Posts: 511
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: S Norway
I posted the south side and link to both pics earlyer
The globe in the original ausie news is just a plentagon design

cheers


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Portal by phpBB3 Portal © phpBB Türkiye
[ Time : 0.124s | 18 Queries | GZIP : Off ]