Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet
By the way, any time you have the question "how cost effective something is?" or "can we build this?", think of the biggest building or piece of infrastructure you know. We already
build humongous towers of steel and glass and keep them electrically lit through day and night, and have thousands of kilometers of cabling and pipelines to sustain them.
Of course we did, the thing is that the activity that that electricity and piping sustains within makes its construction cost-effective. I'm not diminishing farming in any way, I was just skeptical that such an investment would work necessarily because farming isn't as profitable as other businesses that could occupy the same space.
Originally Posted by Karoht
You are not ignorant, you are correct. However, a rotational system takes care of this concern, and artificial lighting can fill in any gaps as needed. The system doesn't need reliance on one or the other. In fact a system which does rely on one source isn't a good idea due to standard risk factors.
It's been cost effective for quite some time. Check out the site, they've already done the math, the systems have been tested extensively. Combine that high level technology with the natural concepts and organization from www.growingpower.org
and it only gets better.
Well there you go, it can work.
I agree, they need not be mutually exclusive, simply supplemental to each other. That said, it still occurs to me that there's a reason that it's not done on a greater scale, as in why we don't see very many omega farms. I figure it's because there is no serious food shortage in the industrialized world. If there were, increased prices would make such farms, in addition to the traditional models, very profitable. On the converse, building them and increasing supply would lower prices. While good for the consumer it makes farming in general less profitable.
Supply and demand. That's my theory as to why we don't see more omega farms.