Indoor Vertical Farming in the Urban Nexus Context: Business Growth and Resource Savings
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. The Danish Reality
1.2. Indoor Urban Vertical Farming
1.3. Food Waste and Management
2. Materials and Methods
- (a)
- Aarhus is the second largest city in Denmark, meaning that a business providing sufficient quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables to the consumers can be a sustainable case.
- (b)
- Aarhus is considered one of the major global hubs in the wind energy market. Indeed, Denmark is one of the most energy self-sufficient countries in the world with a rate of 94% and a 28% share of gross energy consumption deriving from renewable energy and waste [32]. Denmark is among the Nord Pool countries that exchange electricity with Swedish, Norwegian, German, and other power grids in an integrated grid.
- (c)
- The vegetables available in Aarhus supermarkets and grocery stores are of very high quality. Denmark has one of the highest organic market shares in the world. In fact, more than 11% of the Danes buy organic products, of which vegetables and fruits comprise 33% (€1.8 billion) [33]. Customers are familiar with high-quality products, and they are willing to pay more money to buy high-nutrient value and chemical-free products.
3. Basic Assumptions and Resource Analysis
3.1. Assumptions
- A semi-closed GH was chosen, as this would reduce costs compared to a closed GH. Semi-closed GHs have vents, which can be used to cool, dehumidify, and control pest infestation. Similarly, plants in IUVF facilities grow in a closed loop with horizontal layers (one above the other). This method cannot be applied in GHs, as lower plants will receive limited sunlight radiation due to shading. For this reason, 5000 LED lamps were installed in the IUVF facility at an assumed price of 1.4 €/W3 (approximately 15€/bulb) to simulate the solar radiation [37].
- Assuming that the IUVF facility used a closed-loop production system, the waste could be recycled and reused into useful resources, e.g., fertilizers or biofuels. In such systems, water is constantly circulating in closed loops, with wastewater recycled and reused through installing volcanic rock particles in pipes that, through pumping these rock particles, can extract nutrients and reuse them in the nutrient solution. Using this method, bio-waste can be used to create a plant nutrient solution. According to Adenaeuer (2014) [38], the estimated quantity of nutrients is equal to almost 50% of all the essential nutrients of the plants. Consequently, the estimated nutrient costs can be reduced up to 50%.
- To make it easier to compare the two farming techniques, it was assumed that both plant factories had a cultivation area of 675 m2. However, the IUVF facility had a smaller unit area of floor space (225 m2), since the crops are grown in multiple layers. Based upon real estate leasing standards in the Aarhus area, it was estimated that the rent of the IUVF facility was 31.5€/m2/year and 25.8€/m2/year for the GH.
- No safety measurements against fungi, different types of bacteria, pests, and diseases were assumed for the design of the building. However, necessary measures to prevent and combat diseases in the IUVF facility were needed, but this will be examined further in a future study.
- To achieve this result, we used the same environmental conditions in the cultivation area, including relative humidity, air temperature, and CO2. Dou et al. (2018) [39] recommend 14 mol/m2/day for a 16-hour photoperiod as the optimal daily light integral (DLI) for sweet basil [40]. In the GH facility, the artificial lighting was used only as a supplementary lighting and not as the main light source, which was solar radiation. However, adding artificial lighting would be necessary considering that the number of lighting hours in Denmark is very limited, specifically in winter.
- No calculations were performed on the structural condition of the building. Instead, several estimates were made based on previous literature studies on the building structure and the location of the structural materials of a vertical farm. IUVF facilities are completely isolated from the outdoor environment and have no window openings. For this reason, the ceiling and the walls surrounding them have a better thermal insulation compared to a GH facility. The R-value for both facilities was defined. The R-value expresses how well a building is insulated; the higher the R-value, the better the insulation. We assumed that the IUVF facility was installed in the interior space of a warehouse, and thus an R-value of 13 was used [41], while the GH had an R-value of 0.95, assuming that the coverage material was single-pane glass. It was assumed that the height of the building was the same throughout the building.
- In terms of construction and equipment, it was assumed that the GH has a heating, cooling, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system that operates primarily with solar radiation for heating purposes and with heating natural gas in a semi-closed system and with natural ventilation for cooling and dehumidification purposes. The heating and cooling costs for the GH case very much depended on the latitude and external climate conditions of the facility, and because of the mean of natural gas we did not convert their energy loads using coefficient of performance. As an alternative, it was assumed that the conversion of natural gas to electricity has the same conversion efficiency as heating. For the GH facility, the CO2 level was assumed at 800ppm. For the case of the IUVF that is a closed system, we assumed a forced circulation system of heating, cooling, and air cooling. The interior climate in the IUVF had a limited interaction with the outdoor conditions, making easier and more efficient the energy use for heating, cooling, and lighting purposes. In order to calculate the energetic loads in IUVF, we converted them to electricity using their respective coefficients of performance sourcing from previous literature [42]. It was assumed that the CO2 use of the IUVF remains stable throughout the whole year, 1000ppm daily, to assure that plants have enough CO2 to transform into sugars through photosynthesis and continue their optimal growth. In order to define the total electricity demand of IUVF, we proceeded to energy calculation of heating, latent cooling, and sensible cooling. In addition, to control the humidity and cooling of the farm, ventilation fans powered by electricity were used.
- Finally, it was assumed that the wholesale price of basil was the same for both facilities (7.37 €/kg) and that the distance from the facilities to the consumers was the same. This was assumed due to the floating prices in the real estate; the closer a facility is to the city center, the higher the rental price per m2 [43]. IUVF facilities are located in and around city centers and can provide products that are fresher, more sustainable, and of higher quality. However, the rental price is much higher in urban cities, which is the reason the above assumption was established. Additionally, the number of harvests was different depending on the facilities and the yield per harvest (Table 1). Furthermore, it was assumed that the density of the plants was the same in both facilities.
- It was assumed that the IUVF facility consumes 50% less nutrients than the GH, as minerals are added to the irrigation water and supplied to the plants directly at their roots by the hydroponic system [29]. Since the IUVF facility is based on a closed-loop system, where nutrients are circulated, it is possible to design a circulatory system without nutrient waste in the production line.
3.2. Real Estate
3.3. Yield/Biomass Production
3.4. Mobility and Dynamics in OPEX and CAPEX
3.5. Resource Use Efficiency
3.6. CAPEX and OPEX
4. Cash Flow Analysis: Scenarios Proposed
5. Results
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Angel, S.; Parent, J.; Civco, D.L.; Blei, A.; Potere, D. The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Prog. Plan. 2011, 75, 53–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagos Population. Available online: http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/lagos/ (accessed on 28 February 2019).
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, International Fund for Agricultural Development, World Food Programme, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2015. In Proceedings of the Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015.
- Fuldauer, L.I.; M. Parker, B.M.; Yaman, R.; Borrion, A. Managing anaerobic digestate from food waste in the urban environment: Evaluating the feasibility from an interdisciplinary perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 185, 929–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manos, D.P.; Xydis, G. Hydroponics: Are we moving towards that direction only because of the environment? A discussion on forecasting and a systems review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 12662–12672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cuesa. Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture, USA, San Francisco. Available online: https://cuesa.org/learn/how-far-does-your-food-travel-get-your-plate (accessed on 8 November 2019).
- Blanke, M.M.; Burdick, B. Food (miles) for Thought; Energy Balance for Locally-grown versus Imported Apple Fruit. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2005, 12, 125–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UN Environment. Annual Report Putting the Environment at the Heart of People’s Lives; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- George Mason University. Agricultural Weather Research Holds Promise for Global Food Production; George Mason University: Fairfax, VA, USA, 28 March 2012; Available online: http://cos.gmu.edu/news/fall-2011/agricultural-weather-research-holds-promise-global-food-production (accessed on 8 October 2012).
- Li, C. Crop Diversity for Yield Increase. PLoS ONE 2009, 4. Available online: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008049 (accessed on 1 November 2019). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016, FAOSTAT Database, FAO. Available online: www.fao.org/faostat (accessed on 1 December 2016).
- OECD Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Available online: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_GHG (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- WWF Report, WWF: Denmark Has World’s Fourth Largest Ecological Footprint. Available online: http://cphpost.dk/news/international/wwf-denmark-has-worlds-fourth-largest-ecological-footprint.html (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- US Department of Seeberg Energy. Annual Energy Outlook; U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
- Tropp, D. Why Local Food Matters: The Rising Importance of Locally-Grown Food in the US Food System (No. 160752); United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
- Markets and Markets. Commercial Greenhouse Market by Equipment (Heating Systems, Cooling Systems, and Others), Type (Glass Greenhouse, Plastic Greenhouse and Others), Crop Type, & by Region—Global Trends & Forecasts to 2020. Available online: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/commercial-greenhouse-market-221045451.html (accessed on 25 October 2017).
- Statista Denmark: Import of Goods from 2007 to 2017. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/318299/import-of-goods-to-denmark/ (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). Rome, Italy. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2050e.pdf. (accessed on 15 October 2019).
- Xydis, G.; Liaros, S.; Botsis, K. Energy demand analysis via small scale hydroponic systems in suburban areas—An integrated energy-food nexus solution. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 593, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kozai, T. Sustainable Plant Factory: Closed Plants Production System with Artificial Light for High Resource Use Efficiencies and Quality Produce. Acta Hortic. 2013, 1004, 27–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, D.M. Maximizing the Nutritional Value of Fruits and Vegetables. Review of literature on nutritional value of produce compares fresh, frozen, and canned products and indicates areas for further research. Food Technol. 2007, 61, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
- Togawa, T.; Fujita, T.; Dong, L.; Fujii, M.; Ooba, M. Feasibility assessment of the use of power plant-sourced waste heat for plant factory heating considering spatial configuration. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 81, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avgoustaki, D.D. Optimization of Photoperiod and Quality Assessment of Basil Plants Grown in a Small-Scale Indoor Cultivation System for Reduction of Energy Demand. Energies 2019, 12, 3980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yang, Q.; Li, Z.; Lu, X.; Duan, Q.; Huang, L.; Bi, J. A review of soil heavy metal pollution from industrial and agricultural regions in China: Pollution and risk assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 642, 690–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- United Against Food Waste. Available online: http://unitedagainstfoodwaste.com/facts-about-food-waste.html (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Halloran, A.; Clement, J.; Kornum, N.; Bucatariu, C.; Magid, J. Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark. Food Policy 2014, 49, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordic Council of Ministers. Initiatives on Prevention of Food Waste in the Retail and Wholesale Trades; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kozai, T.; Nio, G.; Tagakaki, M. Plant Factory as a Resource-Efficient Closed Plant Production System. In Plant Factory an Indoor Vertical Farming System for Efficient Quality Food Production; Academic Press: London, UK, 2016; pp. 69–90. [Google Scholar]
- Zhiyan Consulting Group 2013–2018 China IVD Industry Research and Investment Strategy Consultation Report; ReportLinker: HongKong, China, August 2013.
- ReportsnReports. Vertical Farming Market by Growth Mechanism (Hydroponics, Aeroponics and Aquaponics), Structure (Building Based and Shipping Container), Offering (Hardware, Software and Service), Crop Type, and Geography—Global Forecast to 2022. Available online: http://www.reportsnreports.com/reports/457086-vertical-farming-market-by-functional-device-lighting-hydroponic-componentclimate-control-and-sensors-growth-mechanism-aeroponics-hydroponics-and-others-and-bygeography-global-forecast-to-2020.html (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- Avgoustaki, D.D.; Xydis, G. Plant Factories in the Water-Food-Energy Nexus Era: A Systematic Bibliographical Review. Food Secur. 2020, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danish Energy Agency Energy in Denmark. Data, Tables, Statistics and Maps. Available online: https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Statistik/energy_in_denmark_2016.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Kaad-Hansen, L. Organic Denmark. Facts and Figures about Danish Organics. Available online: https://www.organicdenmark.com/facts-figures-about-danish-organics (accessed on 20 November 2019).
- The Local/Ritzau. Danish House Prices Reach Highest Ever Level, Beating 11-Year Record. Available online: https://www.thelocal.dk/20190318/danish-house-prices-reach-highest-ever-level-beating-11-year-record (accessed on 20 November 2019).
- Storey, A. Growing Hydroponic Basil? Powered by Plenty. Available online: https://university.upstartfarmers.com/blog/hydroponic-basil (accessed on 20 November 2019).
- Liaros, S.; Botsis, K.; Xydis, G. Technoeconomic Evaluation of Urban Plant Factories: The Case of Basil (Ocimum basilicum). Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 554, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- US Department of Energy. Annual Energy Outlook (AEO); U.S. Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
- Adenaeuer, L. Up, Up and Away! The Economics of Vertical Farming. J. Agric. Stud. 2014, 2, 40–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dou, H.; Niu, G.; Gu, M.; Masabni, J.G. Responses of Sweet Basil to Different Daily Light Integrals in Photosynthesis, Morphology, Yield, and Nutritional Quality. Hortic. Sci. 2018, 53, 496–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beamman, A.R.; Gladon, R.J.; Schrader, J.A. Sweet Basil Requires an Irradiance of 500 μ mol·m-2·s-1 for Greatest Edible Biomass Production. HortScience 2009, 44, 64–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Colorado Energy. R-Value Table Insulation Values for Selected Materials. Available online: http://www.coloradoenergy.org/procorner/stuff/r-values.htm (accessed on 6 November 2019).
- Graamans, L.; Baeza, E.; Van Den Dobbelsteen, A.; Tsafaras, I.; Stanghellini, C. Plant factories versus greenhouses: Comparison of resource use efficiency. Agric. Syst. 2017, 160, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chalabi, M. Vertical farming: Skyscraper sustainability? Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 18, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naus, T. Is Vertical Farming Really Sustainable? EIT Food. Available online: https://www.eitfood.eu/blog/post/is-vertical-farming-really-sustainable (accessed on 7 November 2019).
- Pennisi, G.; Orsini, F.; Blasioli, S.; Cellini, A.; Crepaldi, A.; Braschi, I.; Spinelli, F.; Nicola, S.; Fernandez, J.A.; Stanghellini, C.; et al. Resource use efficiency of indoor lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cultivation as affected by red:blue ratio provided by LED lighting. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Primary Industries; Australian Government; Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research. Available online: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/470026/Lettuce-gross-margin-budget.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2020).
- Trading Economics. Available online: https://tradingeconomics.com/denmark/labour-costs (accessed on 7 November 2019).
- Real Estate Agency. Available online: https://www.matchoffice.com/dk/lease/warehouses/8200-aarhus-n (accessed on 7 November 2019).
- Dorward, A. Agricultural labour productivity, food prices and sustainable development impacts and indicators. Food Policy 2013, 39, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tiseo, I. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/418075/electricity-prices-for-households-in-denmark/ (accessed on 7 November 2019).
- Eaves, J.; Eaves, S. Comparing the Profitability of a Greenhouse to a Vertical Farm in Quebec. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2018, 66, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HydroQuebec. Available online: http://www.hydroquebec.com/business/customer-space/rates/rate-g-general-rate-small-power.html (accessed on 7 November 2019).
- Basil Production. Department: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Republic of South Africa; Directorate Communication Services: Pretoria, South Africa, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Raimodi, G.; Orsini, F.; Maggio, A.; De Pascale, S. Yield and quality of hydroponically grown sweet basil cultivars. Acta Hortic. 2006, 723, 357–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UC Davis [WIFSS] Western Institute for Food Safety and Security Basil. Available online: https://www.wifss.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Basil_PDF.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Basil Wholesale Price around the World. Available online: https://www.tridge.com/intelligences/basil (accessed on 7 November 2019).
- Runkle, E.; Bugbee, B. Plant Lighting Efficiency and Efficacy: Μmols Per Joule. Available online: https://gpnmag.com/article/plant-lighting-efficiency-and-efficacy-%CE%BCmol%C2%B7j-%C2%B9/ (accessed on 7 November 2019).
- Putievsky, E.; Galambosi, B. Production Systems of Sweet Basil. In Basil: The Genus Ocimum; Hiltunen, R., Holm, Y., Eds.; Harwood Academic Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 39–61. [Google Scholar]
- Birkby, J. Vertical Farming. The World’s Largest Indoor Vertical Farm Is Coming to New Jersey. ATTRA Sustain. Agric. 2016, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Xydis, G.; Liaros, S.; Avgoustaki, D.D. Small Scale Plant Factories with Artificial Lighting and Wind Energy Microgeneration: A Multiple Revenue Stream Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedersen, E.H. Danish Agriculture. Danmarks Nationalbank. In Monetary Review, 2nd ed.; Quarter: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014; pp. 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- Xydis, G. A techno-economic and spatial analysis for the optimal planning of wind energy in Kythira island, Greece. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 146, 440–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Growth, M.V.; Fagt, S.; Brøndsted, L. Social determinants of dietary habits in Denmark. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2001, 55, 959–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denmark.dk Pioneers in Clean Energy. Available online: https://denmark.dk/innovation-and-design/clean-energy (accessed on 20 February 2020).
GH | IUVF | Unit | Citation | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Real estate | ||||
Lease | 25.76 | 31.5 | €/m2 | [48] |
Width of building | 18.3 | 15 | m | |
Length of building | 91.5 | 15 | m | |
Height of building | 4.6 | 7.5 | m | |
Growing space | 675 | 675 | m2 | |
Grow levels | 1 | 6 | ||
Growth-unit size | 1.5 | 1.5 | m2 | |
Labor | ||||
Laborers/10,000 kg yield | 0.18 | 0.18 | person | [49] |
Hourly cost of labor | 43.5 | 43.5 | €/h | [47] |
Electricity | ||||
Electricity cost (500–2000 MWh) | 0.18823 | 0.18823 | €/kWh | [50] |
Electricity cost (20,000–70,000) | 0.10086 | 0.10086 | €/kWh | [50] |
Internal electricity distribution capital cost | 0.45 | 0.45 | €/W | [51] |
Electricity demand charge | 13 | 13 | €/kW | [52] |
Utility electricity distribution capital cost | 0.30 | 0.30 | €/W | [51] |
Plants: Basil | ||||
Harvest/year | 5 | 10 | [53] | |
Yield/harvest | 2 | 5 | kg/m2 | [54,55] |
Wholesale price | 7.37 | 7.37 | €/kg | [56] |
LED price | 1.48 | 1.48 | € | |
LED efficacy: photosynthetic photon efficacy (PPE) | 4.8 | 4.8 | μmol/J | [57] |
Heating and cooling | ||||
Ventilation system | 0.986 | 0.986 | €/W | [51] |
Heating system capital cost | 0.0208 | 0.0208 | €/W | [51] |
Electricity (kWh) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tout (°C) | Tin (°C) | DLI (mol/m2/d) | NG Heat (m3) | Ventilation | LED Lighting | A/C Cooling | Total Electricity | |
Jan | 0.0 | 18.3 | 25.2 | 4738 | 8 | 24,517 | 0 | 24,524 |
Feb | 1.0 | 18.3 | 28.8 | 3136 | 7 | 14,991 | 0 | 14,998 |
Mar | 3.0 | 18.3 | 32 | 3037 | 8 | 7237 | 0 | 7245 |
April | 6.0 | 21.1 | 31.5 | 2139 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
May | 12.0 | 21.1 | 27 | 1330 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 13 |
June | 15.0 | 21.1 | 22.5 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 2769 | 2781 |
July | 17.0 | 21.1 | 19.8 | 0 | 91 | 0 | 2794 | 2886 |
Aug | 17.0 | 21.1 | 15.3 | 0 | 91 | 0 | 3573 | 3665 |
Sep | 14.0 | 21.1 | 12.6 | 386 | 88 | 4913 | 0 | 5002 |
Oct | 10.0 | 18.3 | 14.4 | 1717 | 21 | 11,557 | 0 | 11,578 |
Nov | 5.0 | 18.3 | 17.7 | 3081 | 20 | 21,636 | 0 | 21,656 |
Dec | 2.0 | 18.3 | 21.6 | 3782 | 21 | 28,837 | 0 | 28,858 |
Total | 23,345 | 396 | 113,686 | 9136 | 123,218 |
Electricity (kWh) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tout (°C) | Tin (°C) | DLI (mol/m2/d) | NG Heat (m3) | Ventilation | LED Lighting | A/C Cooling | Total Electricity | |
Jan | 0.0 | 18.3 | 0 | 3823 | 4 | 59,076 | 0 | 59,081 |
Feb | 1.0 | 18.3 | 0 | 4830 | 4 | 53,359 | 0 | 53,363 |
March | 3.0 | 18.3 | 0 | 3296 | 4 | 59,076 | 0 | 59,081 |
April | 6.0 | 21.1 | 0 | 3442 | 4 | 57,171 | 0 | 57,175 |
May | 12.0 | 21.1 | 0 | 2638 | 4 | 59,076 | 0 | 59,081 |
June | 15.0 | 21.1 | 0 | 1942 | 4 | 57,171 | 2041 | 59,261 |
July | 17.0 | 21.1 | 0 | 263 | 29 | 59,076 | 1950 | 61,055 |
Aug | 17.0 | 21.1 | 0 | 298 | 29 | 59,076 | 3273 | 62,378 |
Sep | 14.0 | 21.1 | 0 | 29 | 28 | 57,171 | 0 | 57,199 |
Oct | 10.0 | 18.3 | 0 | 706 | 4 | 59,076 | 0 | 59,081 |
Nov | 5.0 | 18.3 | 0 | 1862 | 4 | 57,171 | 0 | 57,175 |
Dec | 2.0 | 18.3 | 0 | 3096 | 4 | 59,076 | 0 | 59,081 |
Total | 26,225 | 125 | 695,576 | 7265 | 702,966 |
GH | IUVF | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Cost (€) per Grow Unit | Total in % | Cost (€) per Grow Unit | Total in % | |
Lights | 180.87 | 21.08% | 370.55 | 43.19% |
Integral connection of lights, etc. | 51.67 | 6.02% | 105.87 | 12.34% |
Electric distribution of electricity | 36.20 | 4.22% | 74.14 | 8.64% |
Grow unit rack | 112.94 | 13.16% | 112.94 | 13.16% |
Hydroponics | 98.15 | 11.44% | 98.15 | 11.44% |
Ventilation fan system | 5.91 | 0.69% | 5.97 | 0.70% |
NG heat system | 0.24 | 0.03% | 0.08 | 0.01% |
Others | 90.34 | 10.53% | 90.34 | 10.53% |
Total CAPEX | 216,123 | 321,763 |
GH | IUVF | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Annual Cost (€) | Total in % | Annual Cost (€) | Total in % | |
Real estate lease | 43,058 | 28.4% | 7087 | 4.7% |
Lights electricity | 13,443 | 8.9% | 49,290 | 32.6% |
Ventilation electricity | 35 | 0.2% | 520 | 0.3% |
Electricity demand charge | 6050 | 4% | 13,897 | 9.2% |
Heating cost (NG) | 26,603 | 17.6% | 15,805 | 10.4% |
Water | 1677 | 1.1% | 882 | 0.6% |
Nutrients | 1149 | 0.8% | 574 | 0.4% |
Seeds | 7031 | 4.6% | 7031 | 4.6% |
Package | 556 | 0.4% | 2511 | 1.7% |
Labor | 53,200 | 35.1% | 53,200 | 35.1% |
Total OPEX | 152,802 | 150,800 |
VERTICAL FARMING | SCE_1 | SCE_2 | SCE_3 | SCE_4 | SCE_5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equity/loan/(subsidy) (price) | 50-50 | 40-50-10 | 50-50-5.37 | 20-50-30-8.37 | 50-50-6.37 |
20-year cumulative gross profit (€) | 6,418,265 | 6,418,265 | 4,676,538 | 7,289,128 | 5,547,401 |
20-year cumulative OPEX (€) | 3,977,610 | 3,977,610 | 3,977,610 | 3,977,610 | 3,977,610 |
Sweet basil (price/kg) | 7.37 | 7.37 | 5.37 | 8.37 | 6.37 |
Project cost (€) | 321,764 | 321,764 | 321,764 | 321,764 | 321,764 |
Subsidy/alternative funding | 0% | 10% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Loan | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% |
Equity | 50% | 40% | 50% | 50% | 50% |
Interest rate | 6.50% | 5.80% | 6.50% | 6.50% | 6.50% |
NPV (€) | 911,317 | 966,881 | 168,570 | 1,275,569 | 547,065 |
Project IRR (%) | 34.74% | 45.25% | 0.38% | 52.24% | 17.96% |
Period payback (years) | 4 | 4 | 21 | 3 | 6 |
VERTICAL FARMING | SCE_6 | SCE_7 | SCE_8 | SCE_9 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Equity/loan/(subsidy) (price) | 25-75 | 50-40-10 | 20-50-30 | 70-30-5.37 |
20-year cumulative gross profit (€) | 6,418,265 | 6,418,265 | 6,418,265 | 4,676,538 |
20-year cumulative OPEX (€) | 3,977,610 | 3,977,610 | 3,977,610 | 3,977,610 |
Sweet basil (price/kg) | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 | 5.37 |
Project cost (€) | 321,764 | 321,764 | 321,764 | 321,764 |
Subsidy/alternative funding | 0% | 10% | 30% | 0% |
Loan | 75% | 40% | 50% | 30% |
Equity | 25% | 50% | 20% | 70% |
Interest rate | 6.25% | 5.90% | 4.40% | 6.70% |
NPV (€) | 857,409 | 988,363 | 1,095,480 | 226,049 |
Project IRR (%) | 63.34% | 37.49% | 97.55% | 0.04% |
Period payback (years) | 3 | 4 | 2 | 21 |
GREENHOUSE | SCE_1 | SCE_2 | SCE_3 | SCE_4 | SCE_5 | SCE_6 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equity/loan/(subsidy) (price) | 50-50 | 40-50-10 | 50-50-5.37 | 20-50-30-8.37 | 50-50-6.37 | 25-75 |
20-year cumulative gross profit (€) | 3,209,132 | 3,209,132 | 2,338,269 | 3,644,564 | 2,773,701 | 3,209,132 |
20-year cumulative OPEX (€) | 3,907,011 | 3,907,011 | 3,902,743 | 3,909,146 | 3,904,877 | 3,907,011 |
Sweet basil (price/kg) | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 |
Project cost (€) | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 |
Subsidy/alternative funding | 0% | 10% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Loan | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 75% |
Equity | 50% | 40% | 50% | 50% | 50% | 25% |
Interest rate | 6.50% | 5.80% | 6.50% | 6.50% | 6.50% | 6.25% |
NPV (€) | −475,965 | −503,174 | −928,760 | −249,568 | −702,363 | −538,813 |
Project IRR | ||||||
Period payback (years) | NEVER | NEVER | NEVER | NEVER | NEVER | NEVER |
GREENHOUSE | SCE_7 | SCE_8 | SCE_9 | SCE_10 | SCE_11 | SCE_12 | SCE_13 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equity/loan/(subsidy) (price) | 50-40-10 | 20-50-30 | 50-50-11.37 | 70-30-5.37 | 50-50-9.37 | 50-50-10.37 | 20-50-30-11.37 |
20-year cumulative gross profit (€) | 3,209,132 | 3,209,132 | 4,950,860 | 2,338,269 | 4,079,996 | 4,515,428 | 4,950,860 |
20-year cumulative OPEX (€) | 3,907,011 | 3,907,011 | 3,915,549 | 3,902,743 | 3,911,280 | 3,913,414 | 3,915,549 |
Sweet basil (price/kg) | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 | 7.37 |
Project cost (€) | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 | 216,127 |
Subsidy/alternative funding | 10% | 30% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 30% |
Loan | 40% | 50% | 50% | 30% | 50% | 50% | 50% |
Equity | 50% | 20% | 50% | 70% | 50% | 50% | 20% |
Interest rate | 5.90% | 4.40% | 6.50% | 6.70% | 6.50% | 6.50% | 4.40% |
NPV (€) | −477,426 | −565,282 | 359,468 | −871,795 | −26,754 | 172,630 | 430,861 |
Project IRR | 17.42% | −12.11% | 4.64% | 50.22% | |||
Period payback (years) | NEVER | NEVER | 7 | NEVER | NEVER | 15 | 3 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Avgoustaki, D.D.; Xydis, G. Indoor Vertical Farming in the Urban Nexus Context: Business Growth and Resource Savings. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051965
Avgoustaki DD, Xydis G. Indoor Vertical Farming in the Urban Nexus Context: Business Growth and Resource Savings. Sustainability. 2020; 12(5):1965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051965
Chicago/Turabian StyleAvgoustaki, Dafni Despoina, and George Xydis. 2020. "Indoor Vertical Farming in the Urban Nexus Context: Business Growth and Resource Savings" Sustainability 12, no. 5: 1965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051965
APA StyleAvgoustaki, D. D., & Xydis, G. (2020). Indoor Vertical Farming in the Urban Nexus Context: Business Growth and Resource Savings. Sustainability, 12(5), 1965. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051965