

Japanese Farmer Builds High-Tech Indoor Veggie Factory - mundizzle
http://www.gereports.com/post/91250246340/lettuce-see-the-future-japanese-farmer-builds

======
munro
Is this, or could, LED gardens be more efficient per sqft than leaving crops
directly in the sunlight? Since a lot of spectrum is unused for photosythesis
[1][2], the conversion of {full spectrum -> electricity -> required spectrum}
seems potentially more efficient.

Another interesting idea would be to create solar panels that only convert the
lost spectrum into {electricty -> required spectrum} [3]

[1] [http://bernardkatz.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/spectrum-o...](http://bernardkatz.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/spectrum-of-sun.jpg) [2]
[http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/pigme...](http://www2.estrellamountain.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/pigment.gif)
[3] [http://mitei.mit.edu/news/transparent-solar-
cells](http://mitei.mit.edu/news/transparent-solar-cells)

------
antsam
I wonder if they can use this tech in the space station or maybe a mission to
Mars? Doesn't seem to need much water and we can probably use solar power to
power the lights?

------
ChuckMcM
Another lettuce farm. Does anyone have a part number for the LED growing lamps
that GE makes, do they have a 'standard' version available? There wasn't
anything relevant on their products page at gelighting.com
([http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/na/solutions/led-
lamps...](http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/na/solutions/led-lamps-and-
modules/index.jsp))

------
idibidiart
Hand wavy arguments as to why this is a bad idea are ... well, just hand wavy.

<<

Solar is ~20% efficient LED's are less than ~40% efficient so you would need
more land area for solar farms than you save by growing indoors. On top of
that you need to pay for all your capital costs. There are other issues, but
if this was close to cost effective you would be seeing this in Iceland which
gets little sunlight in the winter and has cheap energy costs. Instead they
use suplimental lighting inside green houses to boost production.

>>

I thought the vertical stacking makes more efficient use of the light than the
single layer you find in a farm or green house. It means that even though the
light is produced inefficiently the vertical stacking is intended to cancel
out that inefficiency by using the light more efficiently. Moreover, the
optimization of the plant's exposure to light through automated means adds to
increased efficiency in the plant's use of the light.

If every grower did this, it would (or could) destroy Monsanto's business
model. I love it.

~~~
Shivetya
well normally farms cannot grow up, skyscraper style. Also, situating the
building properly should allow for some of it to also be used for power
generation. Then lets go further, make it tall enough that the warm air rising
from the bottom could be used to generate power.

~~~
idibidiart
right, that's the point of stacking and other structure-wise efficiency
enhancement... I didn't go as far as the warm air rising =)

~~~
idibidiart
see this other structural pattern for maximizing use of available light (be it
LED light or sun light)

[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020355030...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203550304577138511287470508)

------
kaonashi
The LED grow lights seem to be a real game-changer; the most modest estimates
put the power savings at ~%50 (over HPS).

~~~
Someone1234
However in the article's example there is only negative power savings as the
plants used to get fed for free from the sun, now they're consuming
electricity from the grid.

Now that might be recoverable via reductions in waste and lower water
consumption (see article) but it isn't automatically a net win, it might be a
net loss overall. Need data.

~~~
leephillips
'The LED lights are a key part of the farm’s magic. They allow Shimamura to
control the night-and-day cycle and accelerate growth. “What we need to do is
not just setting up more days and nights,” he says. “We want to achieve the
best combination of photosynthesis during the day and breathing at night by
controlling the lighting and the environment.”'

Also: 'He is also able to cut discarded produce from 50 percent to just 10
percent of the harvest, compared to a conventional farm. As a result, the
farms productivity per square foot is up 100-fold, he says.

By controlling temperature, humidity and irrigation, the farm can also cut its
water usage to just 1 percent of the amount needed by outdoor fields.'

These are serious productivity gains, but, as you say, they have to be
balanced against electricity use.

~~~
corydominguez
Additional productivity gains might be made by operating the "indoor farm"
within dense urban areas and thus closer to the consumer, thereby removing
transportation costs associated with a typical farm.

~~~
tormeh
Those are overblown. Modern mega-scale logistics are stunningly efficient.
Food shipped by freight-ship and truck are supposedly more efficient with less
polution than a local farmer driving hir* produce to market in a car.

* I hate that term. So clumsy-sounding.

~~~
GVIrish
Sure, anything at industrial scale is going to me more efficient than a mom
and pop operation. But with a system like this you've got scale and proximity.
Instead of having a network of trucks delivering lettuce from California
thousands of miles cross country, you can have a small fleet of trucks
delivering lettuce within a 2 hour radius. Less spoilage, far less gas, and
far less planning and logistics.

This could be huge in cities with abandoned/run down industrial districts that
have been hard hit by globalization.

------
a_bonobo
This is good news for farmers around Fukushima - no-one buys food from there
for obvious reasons, which is why they started to grow indoor hydroponic
farms, but not on a large scale yet [1]. This way the plants don't get into
contact with irradiated soil, but I doubt that people will buy them.

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-10/fukushima-seeks-
rev...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-10/fukushima-seeks-revival-in-
radiation-free-farms-with-no-soil.html)

------
brixon
In countries/areas where land prices are very expensive, this might help.

In the US I don't see this helping with common food stock
(wheat/corn/cotton/soybean/tobacco/...). I could see this used for
presentation foods (foods we judge more from looks) since you can control
everything so much more you will likely get more products that can demand a
premium price.

~~~
dynofuz
or when aquifers run out of freshwater used to irrigate fields

~~~
AJ007
It would be very interesting to see what the price of water would be if it was
subject to a market. A tragedy of the commons which isn't immediately visible
until gone. Paradoxically some cities in the future will be bone dry ( Las
Vegas) which others will be under water (Miami.) Freshwater available in
neither.

Another good point is reduction or elimination of e coli & other pathogens
caused by livestock runoff & workers shitting in the fields.

~~~
contingencies
_workers shitting in the fields._

Outside of eating meat, B12 comes only from growing vegetables in proximity to
mammal manure... it's not necessarily such a bad thing as you make out.

------
bjfish
This reminds me of Garden Fresh Farms indoor farms:
[http://gardenfreshfarms.com/](http://gardenfreshfarms.com/)

------
Thiz
In average, one acre of any crop brings about a thousand dollars per year in
revenue. With this method it would increase by 100-fold.

That's a real agricultural industrialization.

~~~
Retric
Electricity is not free. This is a stupid waste of resources that might "work"
through a vary large government subsidy.

~~~
idibidiart
Solar is not free above sunk cost? We've ran a whole house in AZ exclusively
on solar the last 7 years, with a ~$40K investment. Would this consume so much
electricity that the initial cost will not be recouped before the solar system
degrades beyond use? What's the math you're inferring from?

~~~
Retric
Solar is ~20% efficient LED's are less than ~40% efficient so you would need
more land area for solar farms than you save by growing indoors. On top of
that you need to pay for all your capital costs.

There are other issues, but if this was close to cost effective you would be
seeing this in Iceland which gets little sunlight in the winter and has cheap
energy costs. Instead they use suplimental lighting inside green houses to
boost production.

~~~
idibidiart
I thought the vertical stacking makes more efficient use of the light than the
single layer you find in a farm or green house. I thought that means even
though the light is produced inefficiently the vertical stacking cancels out
that inefficiency. Moreover, the optimization of the plant's exposure to light
through automated means adds to increased efficiency in the plant's use of the
light.

~~~
Retric
Numbers matter.

45% of the light is in the photosynthetic active wavelength range in a normal
farm vs ~20% solar panels w/ transmission conversion losses etc + 40% LED =
~8% of the incoming light is now useful for photosynthesis.

So, you need a huge increase in efficiency ~400+% just to break even.

PS: Not that their using solar power, but it's still worth considering.

~~~
idibidiart
What does the 45% of light that is in the photosynthetic range have to do with
the with the efficiency of solar cells and LEDs? It would be more direct to
compare % of natural light that is in photosynthetic range with % of LED light
that is in that range. If you have a formula on which you're basing your
assumptions then write it down so I can understand and examine your logic
without any misunderstanding. Else, you're making hand wavy assumptions, with
statements like "numbers matters" without clearly stated relationship between
said numbers.

~~~
Retric
Ideally 100% of LED light is in the photosynthetic rage. It looks like there
using white LED's which are less efficient AND not optimal for plants. Sill,
assuming the 'best case' using current mass market tech.

    
    
      Sunlight > photosynthisis (45%)   = 45%.
      Sunlight > solar cell (22%) > conversion, storage, transmission (90%) 
      > LED (40%) > photosynthisis(100%) = 8%
    

reality is LED efficecy drops over time and LED light is not quite 100% ect
but this is the optomistic best case numbers.

~~~
idibidiart
but what stops a structural technique for maximizing light usage by plants
(like stacking or some more optimal structural pattern, such as the natural
tree pattern [1] optimized by nature) from achieving 4X or more increase in
efficiency of light usage?

1\.
[http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405297020355030...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203550304577138511287470508)

~~~
Retric
You can do the same sort of 3D arrangements with plants and sunlight. However,
building a 3d structure costs money so you need to compare it with all the
other ways of boosting yeild to find out the best option.

Generally, a mix of irrigation, fertilizer, better breeds, and greenhouses are
the best option for boosting yield. Mix in more marginal land as needed (Note:
~68.4% of Japan is covered in forests.)

Greenhouses for example let you have a longer growing season and pack plants
more closely together when their young. Which can let you have an early
harvest and then use that same land for another plant or a plant with a longer
growing season. Closer to the tropics you can often get 2 or 3 harvests a
year. However, they have significant capital and labor costs.

PS: Now, we can try and figure out how a Dystopian future can feed say X
billion people but we are a _long_ way from needing indoor hydroponics.

------
idibidiart
If every grower did this, it would destroy Monsanto's business model.

