Definitely interesting, but would love to see some results other than leafy greens and basil. From what I know (farmed in Vancouver, BC) neither have much disease pressure, nor require much manual attention.
If an initial goal is to increase local produce for winter months in cooler climates (than California) then seeing tomatoes, summer squash, and fruits seems necessary. I think berries could be confined to the small space, but what about fruit trees? I personally store (preserve or freeze) berries and peaches to have in winter.
Kale and other leafy's can be over-wintered with much cheaper (to build and operate) green or hoop houses – at least in the pacific northwest.
I understand they are in the MVP kinda stage, but to me, to see any potential value I would need to know if fruit, tomatoes, summer squash can be done in winter, as those require more heat, more sun, and have higher disease pressure.
I want to see something like this but at the consumer level, for chickens, and with an integrated compost. Inconvenience is the biggest obstacle keeping people from turning their food waste into eggs.
This looks really interesting - but I had couple questions I couldn't find answers to.
The FAQ mentions that the annual operating cost is about $12,000/yr, including "growing supplies, electricity, water, and labor." What's the breakdown? I'm kind of surprised, I'd expect electricity costs (for fully artificial light and heating the container through the winter) to be much higher.
Also - is there a reason this is better than a greenhouse - where at most you'd need to supplement light during the winter months, as opposed to providing year-round artificial light for all the plant's needs?
And finally - the sentence: "LEDs don't put off heat" isn't true. Might want to get that taken out.
The best advantage over a greenhouse seems to be stacking potential but that's only an advantage where square footage is limited.
The FAQ on their site seems to gloss over the greenhouse comparison only specifying the following: "It is more versatile, durable and cost effective than traditional greenhouses, and, because of its uniform configuration, it is a more efficient growing solution."
Uniform configuration? A greenhouse can be built in any configuration desired. I'd like to see more detail in that comparison.
A greenhouse could, but you'd have to make a bunch of decisions and figure things out by yourself. The nice thing about using standard shipping containers is that lots of people have made the same decision, so there's lots of knowledge and tech that works yesterday.
Losing out on all that free clean fusion energy seems like the biggest weakness, to be honest.
Sorry but I am highly skeptical. I have been watching developments in this area for forty years. There's an announcement made with amazing claims. You follow up in a year and find the numbers always never worked out. I'd love to see an audited statement of their first year results with one of these units.
It is easy to believe they've achieved some sort of breakthrough. But having spent twenty plus years as an agronomist in a previous career I can tell you there's only so much that you can do without bending the laws of physics.
Its been done in several states using small plots including here in Michigan. We're eventually going to get there in whole fields, primarily through rapid improvements in seed genetics and a focus on yield zones as opposed to grid soil sampling.
FYI I had breakfast years ago with the late Herman Warsaw and he was one of the most inspiring people I've ever known.
Could these one day be buried under houses like we once had cellars for cold storage, wine, curing of meats, etc? Would make for fewer temperature fluctuations - in an Australian summer, a shipping container would bake and perhaps any excess heat from temperature control or lighting could be released to heat the home above it?
"Honey, I'm just going down to the grow cellar to get herbs and pick spinach for dinner."
Of course, it would also be a huge space saving. My house is on a 750sqm block and I have a decent part of my garden allocated to growing vegetables (15+ types at any given time) and herbs (9-10 types). The ability to grow and share more would reduce food miles amongst other advantages.
If the growing supplies arrived via a subscription service and some of the power costs were offset by solar, the demand on hobby owners could be reduced enough to make it viable for more than just small and medium scale farmers.
---
Edit: Also, addition of aquaponics would complicate things, but might interest some. If you're going to be controlling temperature already, might as well do it for the fish too and cycle your water.
Not sure if they are using a Compactus-type system to really pack in growing space for the hydroponics, but if not that might be worth trying.
(1) Hydroponic operations, long term, miss out on a lot of nutrients you otherwise would have had (eg: B2).
(2) Sustainability. These things need significant power and labour inputs due to the artificial, high density, monoculture nature of the crop. Why design like this, when the world is not short on solar power and much of the real wastage is in transport? (Even mentioned in the article)
Following this line of thought, what we really need is closer-to-nature, closer-to-end-consumer solutions - ie. variety of non-monocultured plants in dirt near plate. Good luck monetizing that one! (Note: not a serious challenge; any and all disrespect to GM companies intended)
16 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 45.7 ms ] threadIf an initial goal is to increase local produce for winter months in cooler climates (than California) then seeing tomatoes, summer squash, and fruits seems necessary. I think berries could be confined to the small space, but what about fruit trees? I personally store (preserve or freeze) berries and peaches to have in winter.
Kale and other leafy's can be over-wintered with much cheaper (to build and operate) green or hoop houses – at least in the pacific northwest.
I understand they are in the MVP kinda stage, but to me, to see any potential value I would need to know if fruit, tomatoes, summer squash can be done in winter, as those require more heat, more sun, and have higher disease pressure.
FF: Approximately 50%.
Gross, EBITDA or other? There's a world of difference.
The FAQ mentions that the annual operating cost is about $12,000/yr, including "growing supplies, electricity, water, and labor." What's the breakdown? I'm kind of surprised, I'd expect electricity costs (for fully artificial light and heating the container through the winter) to be much higher.
Also - is there a reason this is better than a greenhouse - where at most you'd need to supplement light during the winter months, as opposed to providing year-round artificial light for all the plant's needs?
And finally - the sentence: "LEDs don't put off heat" isn't true. Might want to get that taken out.
The FAQ on their site seems to gloss over the greenhouse comparison only specifying the following: "It is more versatile, durable and cost effective than traditional greenhouses, and, because of its uniform configuration, it is a more efficient growing solution."
Uniform configuration? A greenhouse can be built in any configuration desired. I'd like to see more detail in that comparison.
Losing out on all that free clean fusion energy seems like the biggest weakness, to be honest.
It is easy to believe they've achieved some sort of breakthrough. But having spent twenty plus years as an agronomist in a previous career I can tell you there's only so much that you can do without bending the laws of physics.
FYI I had breakfast years ago with the late Herman Warsaw and he was one of the most inspiring people I've ever known.
http://www.slideshare.net/jbgruver/farm-journal-dec85-herman...
"Honey, I'm just going down to the grow cellar to get herbs and pick spinach for dinner."
Of course, it would also be a huge space saving. My house is on a 750sqm block and I have a decent part of my garden allocated to growing vegetables (15+ types at any given time) and herbs (9-10 types). The ability to grow and share more would reduce food miles amongst other advantages.
If the growing supplies arrived via a subscription service and some of the power costs were offset by solar, the demand on hobby owners could be reduced enough to make it viable for more than just small and medium scale farmers.
---
Edit: Also, addition of aquaponics would complicate things, but might interest some. If you're going to be controlling temperature already, might as well do it for the fish too and cycle your water.
Not sure if they are using a Compactus-type system to really pack in growing space for the hydroponics, but if not that might be worth trying.
Like this: http://www.desking-systems.com.au/media/catalog/category/fil...
(1) Hydroponic operations, long term, miss out on a lot of nutrients you otherwise would have had (eg: B2).
(2) Sustainability. These things need significant power and labour inputs due to the artificial, high density, monoculture nature of the crop. Why design like this, when the world is not short on solar power and much of the real wastage is in transport? (Even mentioned in the article)
Following this line of thought, what we really need is closer-to-nature, closer-to-end-consumer solutions - ie. variety of non-monocultured plants in dirt near plate. Good luck monetizing that one! (Note: not a serious challenge; any and all disrespect to GM companies intended)