Some people’s reaction to this proposal might be to wonder why bother? We already have a functional agriculture system using sunlight that’s been working for several thousand years. But there is a lot to be said for improving on it.
This approach could grow many foods where they can’t currently be grown. Thus we could localize food production, and decentralize it. This could vastly reduce the waste of food transport. Furthermore, pollution from pesticides could be vastly reduced. It also allows us to think about rewilding huge swathes of our environments. Finally, this is an approach amenable to full automation. Ultimately that will reduce the price of food and its availability. Who knows, several decades from now, the standard way to produce food may be via indoor methods tended to by robot farmers.
You missed the big one, which they empasise themselves: plants are really power-inefficient. They’ve already quadrupled it with their acetate-producing reaction from 1% to 4%. Meanwhile, solar cells can be 30-40% efficient. That means you can feed a lot more people with a lot less resources.
In a way, it’s like the agricultural revolution happening all over again - we go down another trophic level, and now humans are the autotrophs. Apparently they’ve already gotten this method to work with mushrooms.
Perhaps it can be scaled down easily to something that fits in a home. It could be a fridge sized machine that’s hooked up to power and water and keeps producing fresh food. That’ll cut out the middlemen.
That would be dope, especially in places like where I live that are difficult to supply fresh produce to. Right now I just have to settle for a basement greenhouse.
I feel the need to point out this is way more expensive upfront than a patch of dirt, though, so we’re not going to make the switch overnight even if it’s earns itself back easily in the long run.
Some people’s reaction to this proposal might be to wonder why bother? We already have a functional agriculture system using sunlight that’s been working for several thousand years. But there is a lot to be said for improving on it.
This approach could grow many foods where they can’t currently be grown. Thus we could localize food production, and decentralize it. This could vastly reduce the waste of food transport. Furthermore, pollution from pesticides could be vastly reduced. It also allows us to think about rewilding huge swathes of our environments. Finally, this is an approach amenable to full automation. Ultimately that will reduce the price of food and its availability. Who knows, several decades from now, the standard way to produce food may be via indoor methods tended to by robot farmers.
You missed the big one, which they empasise themselves: plants are really power-inefficient. They’ve already quadrupled it with their acetate-producing reaction from 1% to 4%. Meanwhile, solar cells can be 30-40% efficient. That means you can feed a lot more people with a lot less resources.
In a way, it’s like the agricultural revolution happening all over again - we go down another trophic level, and now humans are the autotrophs. Apparently they’ve already gotten this method to work with mushrooms.
Yes, I also forgot to mention this tech is a safeguard against supply-side shocks. like with wheat after Russia attacked Ukraine.
Perhaps it can be scaled down easily to something that fits in a home. It could be a fridge sized machine that’s hooked up to power and water and keeps producing fresh food. That’ll cut out the middlemen.
That would be dope, especially in places like where I live that are difficult to supply fresh produce to. Right now I just have to settle for a basement greenhouse.
I feel the need to point out this is way more expensive upfront than a patch of dirt, though, so we’re not going to make the switch overnight even if it’s earns itself back easily in the long run.