Is there a way to help the transition?

Question

I have an Idea to use hydroponic towers to decrease the amount of farmland used within the US. The extra acreage would be used to plant trees and grow somewhat wild to increase the amount of carbon dioxide and monoxide using plants while increaseing the oxygen to reduce harmful gases and increaseing the ozone layers thickness. My issue is that if we were to use hydroponic towers is that the farmers that are used to farming hundreds of acres will be hurt financially unless they buy into the towers... popular mechanics shows the hydroponic towers in an edition that came out not to long ago. Most plants can grow very healthily in the hydroponic enviornment but some still need to have more research done. Is it feasable to grant farmers some kind of stipend to help change from huge farms to Towers?

Answer 1

The Ethanol Scam: Politicians and Big Agriculture would have you believe that encouraging the use of grain-based ethanol in gasoline is the key to energy independence.

But not only do all the ethanol-related tax breaks, subsidies and mandates harm consumers in many ways - driving up the cost of food and other goods, including gasoline itself - but the process of making and transporting it uses more energy than the end product yields!

Answer 2

The thing is all plants absorb CO2 not just trees and actually a growing plant absorbs mor CO2 then a mature one. Luckily trees continue to grow throughout their lives, but not as much as they do when they first get started. And most of the farmers actually converted natural prarie land into farmland in the US. However, with a growing need for an ever increasing food supply these towers could very well be needed, but not in the US. Unless we get colder and need to do something to give us a longer growing season.

Answer 3

For such towers, you'd need large amounts of cement and steel and other energy intensive materials for construction.

Once constructed, plant growth, and resulting food energy output is partly limited by the light that falls on the plants. If you have more than one level of plants, the lower levels aren't going to get as much light, so you won't have a very healthy plant, and lower food output. You could overcome this with lighting (often used in hydroponics), but this would require more energy input.

If this energy came from fossil fuels, you'd have a systematic problem, as in trying to reduce carbon emissions, you would inadvertently be increasing them. If you got your energy from solar (or wind, which is ultimately another form of solar, through heat convection), you'd need to take into account the inefficiencies in solar power generation (around 30%), energy transport, and conversion to light (low-pressure sodium, the most efficient current lighting technology is less that 30%(1)). Basically, you'd need more space for solar panels to power your towers to make one tone of food than the space you'd use growing that food normally.

That's not to say there are no solutions. Organic permaculture is one - increasing the bio-capacity of arable land, and reducing fossil-fuel based fertiliser and pesticides. Couple this with reduced meat consumption (meat uses far more land than the equivalent amount of vegetable food), and you're on your way. Next, localise all food systems - food transport is a greenhouse gas emitter.

There are plenty more solutions, and the general rule is that low-tech answers are going to be better when it comes to reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.