![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mishalakOne of the stupidest idea of the past 50 years is back again: producing food in skyscrapers. This time the BBC environmental corespondent Richard Black breathlessly reports that we'll be farming fish in skyscrapers so that we can get enough food to cities like London, New York, and Shanghai. The stupid, it burns. This is nothing more than a retread of the same nonsense that has been promoted by that idiot Dickson Despommier who's been peddling this rubbish since the turn of the century.
The idea goes something like this. "Oh, no, we're running out of cheap oil, we won't be able to ship lettuce from California to New York City. We should produce the food locally to cut out shipping." Never mind that it is less expensive both in terms of carbon and in terms of dollars and cents to grow produce in a warm climate and ship it by air than to heat a greenhouse in a cold climate. And that's a greenhouse sitting on less expensive land on the outskirts of a city not prime real estate downtown.
The last time I looked up the numbers for the price of crop land average net returns is about $104.19 per acre in the United States. So for a decent economic return the cost of building/buying an area of land to grow crops on will need to be no more than about (104.19*30)=N*1.02^30-N, or $3,852.41. Those were are are only ballpark numbers, but they fit with the then price of prime farmland in Ohio.
Since then farmland has become more expensive. Recently I saw a price quoted of $10,900 per acre in New Jersey. Undoubtedly there is some development potential built into that price, but it is still far and away less expensive than skyscraper real estate. There are 43,560 square fee in an acre, does anyone know of any skyscraper anywhere that rents office space for less than twenty-five cents a square foot? Anyone? Last I heard it was something like one hundred times as much. Meanwhile even with the slightly bubble like prices in the Midwest they are still down at $5,064 an acre for prime farmland.
The idea that a skyscraper could be built to raise anything agricultural is mindbogglingly stupid.
Now growing things hydroponically (is that a word?) or in vats in some suburban warehouse type space... that might be conceivable. But I continue to laugh at the 'futurist' that proclaims we'll be growing things on the sides of buildings in the future.
Do some research next time Mr. Black! Start by just jotting out numbers on the back of the envelope involving price per pound on fish, how much room they need, and for how long. It simply isn't realistic. Oh and Mr. Black, I think you ought to test out google as well. It was distressingly easy to find out how many lighthouse keepers are still employees watching after lights in the middle of the ocean. NONE. The last manned lights seemed to have been retired before the start of this century with most of them going unmanned decades before that.
The idea goes something like this. "Oh, no, we're running out of cheap oil, we won't be able to ship lettuce from California to New York City. We should produce the food locally to cut out shipping." Never mind that it is less expensive both in terms of carbon and in terms of dollars and cents to grow produce in a warm climate and ship it by air than to heat a greenhouse in a cold climate. And that's a greenhouse sitting on less expensive land on the outskirts of a city not prime real estate downtown.
The last time I looked up the numbers for the price of crop land average net returns is about $104.19 per acre in the United States. So for a decent economic return the cost of building/buying an area of land to grow crops on will need to be no more than about (104.19*30)=N*1.02^30-N, or $3,852.41. Those were are are only ballpark numbers, but they fit with the then price of prime farmland in Ohio.
Since then farmland has become more expensive. Recently I saw a price quoted of $10,900 per acre in New Jersey. Undoubtedly there is some development potential built into that price, but it is still far and away less expensive than skyscraper real estate. There are 43,560 square fee in an acre, does anyone know of any skyscraper anywhere that rents office space for less than twenty-five cents a square foot? Anyone? Last I heard it was something like one hundred times as much. Meanwhile even with the slightly bubble like prices in the Midwest they are still down at $5,064 an acre for prime farmland.
The idea that a skyscraper could be built to raise anything agricultural is mindbogglingly stupid.
Now growing things hydroponically (is that a word?) or in vats in some suburban warehouse type space... that might be conceivable. But I continue to laugh at the 'futurist' that proclaims we'll be growing things on the sides of buildings in the future.
Do some research next time Mr. Black! Start by just jotting out numbers on the back of the envelope involving price per pound on fish, how much room they need, and for how long. It simply isn't realistic. Oh and Mr. Black, I think you ought to test out google as well. It was distressingly easy to find out how many lighthouse keepers are still employees watching after lights in the middle of the ocean. NONE. The last manned lights seemed to have been retired before the start of this century with most of them going unmanned decades before that.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-01-01 01:02 pm (UTC)Hydroponically is a word.
I can't see skyscraper farming as viable unless there is no more land, and that's not happening soon. Also, I don't want to think about the possible deficiencies of foods grown almost entirely under artificial light.