In today’s post, I am looking at the possibilities for Singapore to adopt the LED lighted urban agriculture. As a continuation from the previous post “In Retrospect: Singapore’s vertical farmings must not use LED light bulbs (1)”, I will argue that Singapore should not adopt this model of urban agriculture despite its benefits. This is because Singapore always claims itself to be “alternative-energy disadvantaged”.
Singapore imports almost all its energy needs, as not all renewable energy options are feasible in Singapore (Nccs.gov.sg, 2013) because:
- Hydroelectric power cannot be harnessed, as Singapore lacks a major river system
- Wind speeds are too low and we lack the land footprint for commercial wind turbines.
- Our prospects for geothermal energy are low.
- Our calm seas, which make us a good port, results in tidal ranges that are too low for commercial tidal power generation.
- Our small physical size (715.8 sq km), high population density and land scarcity limits our potential for sustainably-grown domestic biomass, and for the construction of solar-power farms.
As a result, our energy consumption and electricity production are by 2 main sources: Petroleum and Natural Gas.
As such, I do not advocate for Singapore to adopt the LED light Farm model, since the intensive use of artificial light (for mass production) cannot be truly environmentally friendly. The use of carbon sources like natural gas and petroleum to generate the electricity needed for the urban farms will cause carbon emission, and enhance the Greenhouse effect.
That’s all for today. I will round up and summarise my blog soon!.
Work Cited:
Nccs.gov.sg, (2013). National Climate Change Secretariat (NCCS) – Singapore’s Approach to Alternative Energy. [online] Available at: https://www.nccs.gov.sg/climate-change-and-singapore/national-circumstances/singapores-approach-alternative-energy [Accessed 8 Apr. 2015].
Commercial Farming 