Hjacking Photosynthesis

[The Grand Nudger]

Any increase in the cost of the greenhouse is a nono.  If you could make cheap panels sure. At present that falls under the technically possible but not cost effective header.

[Excited Penguin]

Any increase in the cost of the greenhouse is a nono.  If you could make cheap panels sure.  At present that falls under the technically possible but not cost effective header.

But if more people did it, more research would go into cutting costs

[Whateverist]

As I recall, farmers have to double their output by 2040.  This bio-tech is the only answer unless folks are willing to accept/enforce compulsory sterilization.

Or a plague, big war, big asteroid impact, oceanic upheaval, or carnivorous mutant dandelions.

You should at least mention the solution you yourself practice.  Butt sex too has been shown effective in the prevention of human birth.  Come on ladies!  You too can take it like a man if only for the good of the planet.

[vorlon13]

And if the men want to be a good example for their womenfolk, they can take one for the team too.

[Excited Penguin]

And if the men want to be a good example for their womenfolk, they can take one for the team too.

Hahahahhaha



Owned.

[The Grand Nudger]

@EP
That's true, unfortunately more people can't do it in the current environment, greenhouse production is already a small fraction of total production because a greenhouse is a substantial investment with strictly confined usage.  Most production -of any kind- under cover never gets to the point of a greenhouse, mostly just low and high tunnels.  Perhaps a comparison of cost is in order.

An acre is roughly 43k ft2.  The average price for an acre of cropland is around 4k USD.  The average cost to work that acre (mixed vegetable production) is around 3kUSD.  
The average price for a 30x90 greenhouse (aluminum frame and 6mil poly, heating, cooling, irrigation) is 15kUSD.  The average cost to work that single greenhouse is around 10kUSD.  

Human labor, in both cases, is the largest single line item in the operational costs of either option...and it;s about the same for both (though fields have a slight advantage, the available of machine labor).  Now, obviously, you have to have access to land to even put the greenhouse on, so some portion of the costs of an acre are ported into the costs of the simplest and most economic greenhouse option.  So it;s easy to see why greenhouses are something people do for a reason and not "just because".  In favorable conditions you could buy and work an acres worth of field tomatoes for around 7kUSD.  To buy and work a 30x90 greenhouse filled with the same can run you 25kUSD.  That gives you an idea of the yield increase you'd need for parity, to get more people into it, so that more research is devoted to it.  A 30x90 greenhouse would have to produce around 3.5x the yield of an acre of field (which it doesn't, not even close).  Anything that made the greenhouse structure more xpensive, such as glass panels, or pc panels, would push that relationship even further out. People sometimes get stuck on yield per sq ft, and wonder why everything isn;t grown in a pretty steel glasshouse. Well, yield per sq foot isn't the game, return on dollar invested, is.

The only cost effective commercial applications for greenhouse production, at present, are for areas where season extension can net you -at least- 30c per pound premium and two additional plantings relative to field production (essentially, the entirety of south central tomato production in the US hinges on this).  Obviously I've simplified alot of the above, and it doesn't take into account novel business models or products (casa, organics, local food markets...for example) or production in areas with notably higher costs per acre of land or lack/shortage of suitable cropland.

[The Grand Nudger]

As far as cellulose, not alcohol production, conversion to edible sugar. The termite gut does it.

Ruminant mammals also have that ability. We could genetically engineer -ourselves-, if you're looking for something that direct, over and above integrated sugar production.  As soon as we get over the fear of modification, that is, lol.  We could colonize our digestive tracts with a few species of novel bacterium.  We could supplement our diet with targeted enzymes. I suppose, I'd say that once we're onboard with screwing /w shit, the sky's the limit, lol. Just a few changes here and there, to ourselves and our crops, and we might find that the earths carrying capacity /w regards to food is effectively limitless. That we'd run out of everything else before we ever ran out of things to eat.

[Whateverist]

And if the men want to be a good example for their womenfolk, they can take one for the team too.

There are givers and there are takers.  Guess I'm just a giver, sometimes until it hurts .. but just not me.

[Chas]

• CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Researchers report in the journal Science that they can increase plant productivity by boosting levels of three proteins involved in photosynthesis. In field trials, the scientists saw increases of 14 percent to 20 percent in the growth of their modified tobacco plants. The work confirms that photosynthesis can be made more efficient to increase plant yield, a hypothesis some in the scientific community once doubted was possible.
  

https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/6367/430749#image-2

Yabut, will this make cigars cheaper?  

[vorlon13]

And if the men want to be a good example for their womenfolk, they can take one for the team too.

There are givers and there are takers.  Guess I'm just a giver, sometimes until it hurts .. but just not me.

Always room on the org chart for a good top!