kronosapiens.github.io - The Economics of Urban Farming

The Economics of Urban Farming

Kronosapiens.github.io Spined HTML

The Economics of Urban Farming AbacusWell-nighThe Economics of Urban Farming Oct 22, 2017 A few weeks ago, my girlfriend and I went on an urban sublet tour put on by Square Roots, an energetic participant in the urban farming movement. We were curious urban farming and wanted to learn more. The promise of urban farming is appealing: supplies production distributed throughout dumbo urban centers, giving municipality dwellers (half the world population) wangle to fresh and high-quality supplies grown under optimal conditions, while simultaneously eliminating the stat emissions necessitated by transporting supplies wideness long distances from rural production centers, as well as eliminating loss due to pests and disease, and reducing water usage via efficient reclamation. These benefits are real. However, there is a shadow side: much of this flexibility comes from growing supplies indoors: in specially-constructed farming facilities, or as Square Roots proposes, in standard shipping containers. Growing supplies indoors necessitates a new input, which traditional threshing gets for free: light. The importance of this input should be unmistakably stated: inasmuch as earth’s energy comes from the sun, the majority of our sources of energy involve harnessing this solar energy and making it misogynist for later consumption. Plants capture and use this energy in photosynthesis. The herbivores and omnivores which slosh the plants are using that same solar energy. Our fossil fuels consist of this same energy, well-matured over the undertow of thousands of years. Solar panels capture this same energy in increasingly sophisticated ways. As far as our planet is concerned, the Sun is primary source input from which new energy enters our system. A new form of agriculture, then, in which this solar power must be provided from within the system, would seem to have a pathological economics. To shrivel coal to power the lights which grow the plants is to leak energy out of a porous loop: urgent coal to grow the plants to feed the humans to mine the coal. From where does energy enter this system, to indulge it to grow? Light-powered threshing is fine for speciality crops, but would seem questionable as an input into our cadre sustenance loop. One could oppose that indoor, urban threshing brings many efficiencies which offset this new cost. Controlled environments reduce lost due to ripply weather and pests, powerfully multiplying the value of solar energy ultimately brought to market. Better water reclamation ways that supplies is grown with a fraction of the water used on traditional unshut farms. This saves energy financing previously needed to aquire and wipe water. In addition, growing supplies within a mile of where it is ultimately consumed brings transporation financing to nearly zero, eliminating the need for remoter energy inputs for transportation. Finally, as the supplies is of a higher quality, one could oppose that such supplies has benefits on the humans which ultimately slosh it, leading to myriad hard-to-measure personal and social benefits. The treatise concludes that despite needing an essential new input, the process has so many efficiencies that it ultimately becomes a increasingly efficient system for converting energy and material to food. How does this treatise hold up when unromantic to the specimen of Square Roots? At the sublet tour, I asked Tobias Peggs, the co-founder and CEO, the question concerning the new light inputs, and flipside attendee asked well-nigh land costs. His response was that a shipping container sublet unit forfeit well-nigh $1,200 per month to run: $600 to rent the parking space in Brooklyn, and flipside $600 to power the lights. These lights slosh 100 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per day: to put that in perspective, a modern fridge uses 350 kWh per year: these shipping containers require the energy equivalent of 100 modern fridges. Water financing are negligible. Now we ask: how much supplies does this grow? This containers are not huge. By maximizing output and minimizing loss, these containers produce well-nigh 50lb of vegetables per week, 200 per month: an impressive yield for the space. Dividing by cost, we get $1200 / 200 = $6 per pound of supplies (overwhelmingly, leafy greens). This is three 3x the forfeit of a pound of organic Fuji apples at a midtown-Manhattan Whole Foods ($1.99), and 1.7x the forfeit of organic Baby kale ($3.49), without the Bezos price drop. Not great, but not terrible, expressly when you consider that this supplies is of higher quality plane than Whole Food’s best. Yet plane with all these efficiencies, it appears as though the new energy forfeit dominates the equation, making it difficult for these modern farmers to compete with their increasingly traditional counterparts. The sitution becomes increasingly chalenging when you consider a wider range of produce. These containers are usually growing herbs and leafy greens: plants with low biomass. There is interest in growing heaver foods like strawberries and tomatoes, but such foods would (unsurprisingly) require plane increasingly energy, the urban farmer’s disadvantage. One would naturally ask well-nigh solar panels. Could we not line the tops of these shipping containers with solar panels, and substantially protract to grow these plants using energy straight from the sun? When asked this, Peggs replied that current solar technology would indulge for rooftop panels to meet well-nigh 25% of the container farm’s energy needs. Assuming self-ruling installation and maintenance, installing rooftop panels would reduce energy forfeit by $150/mo, bringing cost-per-pound of supplies lanugo to $5.25, still a full 50% increasingly expensive than the $3.49 Whole Foods alternative. So what is Square Roots doing? Why is Square Roots iterating on the merchantry model of “entrepreneural urban farmer?” Why is Square Roots towers out a network of these farmers, each one hustling to sell their greens to local restaurants and specialty groceries, under Square Roots’ imprint? Why is Square Roots working to raise sensation of these volitional greens, focusing first on chefs and restaurants, tastemakers willing to pay a premium provide an no-go experience? They are, as Wayne Gretzky’s father famously taught, “skat[ing] to where the puck is going.” With Kimball Musk, brother of Elon, on the board, it seems fairly well-spoken that Square Roots is financial on a untried energy revolution. While today’s solar panels would power only 25% of the needs of a container farm, today’s solar panels are only virtually 20% efficient in capturing the misogynist solar energy. If solar panels were ripened which were plane 80% efficient (no midpoint feat), then these container farms would be energy-independent, recreating the increasingly fundamental argricultural energy relationship. That growing (as opposed to leaking) energy loop, combined with the many efficiencies of container farming, would lead to container farms rhadamanthine a revolutionary gravity in supplies production. Today solar technology is not there. But in five or ten or twenty years, they perhaps might be. And when that day comes, Square Roots intends to be ready: with a vast network, a scalable merchantry model, and a powerful brand. Is this a gamble? Perhaps. But remember that risk is in the mind of the perceiver. What appears risky to one may not towards risky to another, as they see things differently. Comments Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. Abacus Abacus kronovet@gmail.com kronosapiens kronosapiens I'm Daniel Kronovet, a data scientist living in Tel Aviv.