Good questions. My family operates farms for wheat and corn, and I've been involved in that process, so I can take a stab at answering the last bit:

Corn stalks get quite tall -- 6 feet / 2 meters or so. Each stalk usually has 1 or 2 ears of corn. On our farm, the experience I had suggests that each plant needs quite a lot of healthy leaves for Photosynthesis as well as quite a lot of available ground water. Irrigated corn often produces 2-3 times as many bushels per acre as compared to "dryland" / non-irrigated corn.

So the issues I can see potentially clashing between corn production and vertical farming are:

1) You'd have a greater space requirement for layers of corn since you'd need probably 8-10 feet per layer, as compared to what looks like 2-3 feet per layer for leafy vegetables in the video. Approximately one story per layer wouldn't allow for the massive footprint savings like in leafy plants without getting extremely tall, which would be expensive for water pumping etc.

2) Corn root systems are pretty deep to support a tall and relatively bulky stalk. Getting that to bite into a thin layer of fabric / recycled plastic to provide structural support for the plant would be difficult. I think you'd need to have a thicker bottom layer *and* to manually place further support lines on the stalks as the plants grow, which would get very labor intensive and therefore expensive.

3) The vertical nature of a corn stalk suggests that the overhead motion of the sun might be pretty important for getting light exposure onto all of the leaves. Fixed overhead lights might mean that the top leaves get plenty of light but the ones lower on the stalk would be shaded by those above and get nothing -- which isn't a problem if the sun progresses through low angles at sunrise/set to overhead at noon throughout a day. So you might have to have lighting that hits from all sides to account for that with corn, which would again add expense.

4) To maximize the output, corn needs a LOT of water. Pumping that up the vertical expanse to get lots of levels could easily get problematic. Corn will grow without optimal / abundant watering, and their misting system would likely be more efficient than irrigating to add ground water, but the main benefit of vertical farming seems to be high output in a small land footprint on the ground. So without LOTS of water, you'd be limiting that benefit.


So basically, my guess is that vertical farms are a fantastic idea for squat, spread out plants like lettuce, but a lot of the advantages disappear when you're talking about something tall like corn. I could easily be wrong about any/all of that though.

Probably not back filled properly, or ground water, or "something" but the sides were allowed to move apart, which dropped the top.

So these thingy-dealies won't contaminate ground water if they gusplode? (He really would make a lovely he-she though, and Chloe with a flapper-cut, a fettishing boy)

Someone's physical androgynous characteristics has nothing to do with their sexuality, does it? merely an observation...similar to the one I made based in my 'ignace' of nuclear power, and all her fucked iterations.

I've been anti-nuclear from the git-go, always will be-
I also must maintain that the power that will push the planet into the next exponential blast (if numb, distracted peeps don't let asshole humans turn the place into a dystopian shit hole) won't come from an energy source that uses radioactive anything-It's gonna be something else that creates the energy needed for whatever sustainable future awaits.

my instincts is all I'm going on, but this cat's gonna get snatched-up by insect-keepers for profit and mayhem...Or fuck me, maybe he's gonna be another Nicole Tesla-(pun-intended, the kids cute)

sexuality my ass.....

Quite the androgynous Andy this cat, he'd make a better looking woman-
Uhhh, small-scale modular fusion reactors....DUUUDE. Frikkin' nuclear power.

It's guys like this so excited about the work and the science that scare the holy shit outta me. Nuclear power is going to end up being one of the biggest fuck-ups we ever decided to embrace....already is.

Love that diagram of the reactor under the house-Does anyone else immediately imagine ground water toxicity and the end of all mammalian life on earth?

'out of tolerances', 'dump tank' , drain the core....duuuuude!!

Put your nuclear dream into orbit or meta-galaxial and get excited about something else, please. (and his TEdtalk ends with the economic efficiency of it all....please.)

@GeeSussFreeK

I tried to stay way from issues specific to the use of nuclear technology for a reason. There's very little in your reply that I can respond to, simply for a lack of expertise. So bear with me if I once again attempt to generalize and abstract some points. And I'll try to keep it shorter this time.

You mentioned how construction times and costs are pushed up by the constant evolution of compliance codes. A problem not exclusive to the construction of power plants, but maybe more pronounced in these cases. No matter.

What buggers me, however, is what you can currently observe in real time at the EPR construction sites in Olkiluoto and Flamanville.
For instance, the former is reported to have more than 4000 workers from over 60 nations, involving more than 1500 sub-contractors. It's basically the Tower of Babylon, and the quality of work might be similar as well. Workers say, they were ordered to just pour concrete over inadequate weld seams to get things done in time, just to name an example. They are three years over plan as of now, and it'll be at least 2-3 more before completion.
And Flamanville... here's some of what the French Nuclear Safety Authority had to say about the construction site: "concrete supports look like Swiss cheese", "walls with gaping holes", "brittle spots without a trace of cement".

Again, this is not exclusive to the construction of NPPs. Almost every large scale construction site in Europe these days looks like this, except for whatever the Swiss are doing: kudos to them, wonderful work indeed. But if they mess up the construction of a train station, they don't run a risk of ruining the ground water and irradiating what little living space we have in Europe as it is.

Then you explain the advantages of small scale, modular reactors. Again, no argument from my side on the feasability of this, I have to take your word on it. But looking at how the Russians dispose of their old nuclear reactors (bottom of the Barents Sea) and how Germany disposes of its nuclear waste (dropped down a hole), I don't fancy the idea of having even more reactors around.

As for prices, I have to raise my hands in surrender once again. Not my area of expertise, my knowledge is limited to whatever analysis hits the mainstream press every now and then. Here's my take on it, regarding just the German market: the development, construction, tax exemption, insurance exemption, fuel transport and waste disposal of the nuclear industry was paid for primarly by taxes. Conservative government estimates were in the neighbourhood of €300B since the sixties, in addition to the costs of waste disposal and plant deconstruction that the companies can't pay for. And that's if nothing happens to any of the plants, no flood, no fire, nothing.

That's not cheap. E.ON and RWE dropped out of the bid on construction permits for new NPPs in GB, simply because it's not profitable. RWE CEO Terium mentioned ~100€/MWh as the minimum base price to make new NPPs profitable, 75.80€/MWh for gas-powered plants. Right now, the base (peak) price is at 46€/MWh (54€/MWh) in Germany. France generates ~75% of its power through NPPs, while Germany is getting plastered with highly subsidized wind turbines and solar panels, yet the market price for energy is lower in Germany.

Yes, the conditions are vastly different in the US, and yes, the next generation of NPPs might be significantly cheaper and safer to construct and run. I'm all for research in these areas. But on the field of commercial energy generation, nuclear energy just doesn't seem to cut it right now.

So let's hop over to safety/dangers. Again, priorities might differ significantly and I can only argue from a central European perspective. As cold-hearted as it may sound, the number of direct casualties is not the issue. Toxicity and radiation is, as far as I'm concerned. All our NPPs are built on rivers and the entire country is rather densely populated. A crashing plane might kill 500 people, but there will be no long term damage, particularly not to the water table. The picture of an experimental waste storage site is disturbing enough as it is, and it wasn't even "by accident" that some of these chambers are now flooded by ground water.

Apologies if I ripped anything out of context. I tried to avoid the technicalities as best as I could in a desperate attempt not to make a fool of myself. Again.

And sorry for not linking any sources in many cases. Most of it was taken from German/Swiss/Austrian/French articles.

It's ground water forced up and basically related to sand "volcanoes". This is formed due to liquefaction (Salt Lake City will get the same thing when our earthquake comes. This happens all the time in earthquakes if the land is an ancient seabed, has ground water near the surface, or any other situation that is similair like this reclaimed land.

Don't worry about it too much unless it's a huge one (which would be rare). The big problem is that since it acts like quicksand all the buildings (or anything weighing the right amount) will sink into the ground.

I think I see what you mean: It's hard to compare Mercalli readings from different places due to the differences in structural integrity, population density, etc. ie: a mercalli intensity of VI in one place could be read as II for an earthquake of the same magnitude in a less populated area.

Similarly, an earthquake with magnitude 7 may not even cause any damage (though unlikely in a populated area).



>> ^DerHasisttot:

I mean: The Scales are almost meaningless at the point when human beings are in danger: The released energy denoted in the antiquated Richter scale can have immensely different effects from place to place. The Mercalli-scale measures damages at one specific point, if referred to in the media. (And the media often forgest to say which scale is being used.)
For example, the Christchurch earthquakes: The first earthquake had the same amount of points as the catastrophic Haiti earthquake, and was compared by the NZ media, which enraged me at the time: The quake's proximity to densely populated areas, the geology, ground water-levels and building-density+height were not taken into account. Additionally, for example, paved roads, gas-lines and other infrasctructure weigh immensely on the aid-efforts and damages.
To give accurate information using the Mercalli-scale, the media would have to tell the exact place and radius of the referred number. If they tell the Richter scale, it's only relevant for seismologists and scientists, the actual damages and consequences vary too much.

I mean: The Scales are almost meaningless at the point when human beings are in danger: The released energy denoted in the antiquated Richter scale can have immensely different effects from place to place. The Mercalli-scale measures damages at one specific point, if referred to in the media. (And the media often forgest to say which scale is being used.)

For example, the Christchurch earthquakes: The first earthquake had the same amount of points as the catastrophic Haiti earthquake, and was compared by the NZ media, which enraged me at the time: The quake's proximity to densely populated areas, the geology, ground water-levels and building-density+height were not taken into account. Additionally, for example, paved roads, gas-lines and other infrasctructure weigh immensely on the aid-efforts and damages.

To give accurate information using the Mercalli-scale, the media would have to tell the exact place and radius of the referred number. If they tell the Richter scale, it's only relevant for seismologists and scientists, the actual damages and consequences vary too much.

>> ^residue:

what do you mean by "soil, humidity and other factors outweigh the scale accuracy?" the richter scale is just the quantitative product of readings from seismometers. mercalli scale records qualitative damage from structures
>> ^DerHasisttot:
My news-sources say 8.8, previously 8.9. Although the (I guess) mercalli-scale is not sooo good either. In the end, soil, humidity and other geological factors outweigh the accuracy of such a scale any day. AS seen here vis-vis tsunami. But if you give me a source i'll change it of course.

I'm glad we have a healthy debate going here

SO, what i have not heard from any of the pro-libertarian group is how corporate monopolies would not run absolutely wild and end up ruling the world. I'm not even exaggerating here. Already corporations control way too much and have insane amounts of power. If libertarian beliefs were put in to practice there would be absolutely nothing stopping giant corporations from buying up every piece of land and every natural asset and then subjugating the entire population. Who's going to stop them?

Also, what about the environment? Under the hard core libertarian stance i have heard, If i want to dump toxic waste in my back yard, who is going to tell me i can't? so what if it leaks in to the ground water. that's for some other guy to take care of.

very very possible to stop walking forever after a fall like that. remember it's the same as if she fell out of a (30/40/50) feet window. When she hits, she is going at almost the same speed as she was launched (which was fast). But intuitively it seems "safer" because she started on the ground.

Water is very dense and doesn't move out of the way when you hit it, so at that speed it's more like hitting concrete than water.

who lets their child on this shit without testing it and knowing a tiny bit about the laws of physics?

Hey, this comment is coming from one who takes no sides, purports no affiliation, and thinks that the current skeletal remnants of the electoral process in this country will yeild nothing but more of the same sheit. What do they say about people who do the same thing over and over, expecting different results, but producing the same ones over and over and over....its called INSANITY, and that's the state of politics in this country, and most of the world.
But of course, our vote can turn things around!
Here's mine, a vote for small, regional governments in the U.S., as in....Some state should review their constitution, and drop some balls, and seceed. The first state that does, depending on the topography and availability of fresh ground water, will be my new home.