Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Schottenstein Integrated Food and Energy Research Park

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Schottenstein Integrated Food and Energy Research Park

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #332036

    Tenzo
    Participant

    What I find interesting is that people take an article that says;

    This would be good for a certain place, under these certain circumstance, but the technology isn’t ready yet and the last try netted 20% of the goal.

    and they say; Yeah! lets put it here!
    and ignore the basis of the article.

    By the way, you didn’t tell me how it could be profitable. Saying ‘they could do x’ with no basis in reality isn’t an argument.

    It reminds me of the young girl who wanted me to sign a petition mandating that the US change all it’s electrical generation to solar energy. One of her main arguments was that once we did this, energy would be Free! Because the sun doesn’t cost anything!

    Give me reasoning better than
    1) Steal Underpants
    2) ?
    3) Profit!

    #332037

    gramarye
    Participant

    This has potential, and indeed, this field may well get highly competitive over the next decade; algae-based fuels are starting to get mainstream media coverage, for example.

    However, I have to admit I fail to see the relevance of the Graham site. A site closer to one of the rivers, and to OSU, would probably make more sense. I also think that this promotional piece doesn’t focus narrowly enough for a startup. It’s better to start with a core competency and branch out (or, sometimes, to resist the temptation to branch out) than to try to do everything at once from the outset.

    #332038

    agtw31
    Member

    Morrow county is broke,put the thing up there.

    #332039

    Tenzo
    Participant

    And you want me to show you profitability and patent possibilities? If we new going in what the research was going to produce, we wouldn’t need to do the research, now would we?

    It’s called a business plan.

    and again. The discussion is cooper stadium
    Why there over other sites?
    and why that over somethig else?

    I’m not knocking the technology or the concept.

    #332040

    duncanfj
    Participant

    Tenzo wrote >>

    And you want me to show you profitability and patent possibilities? If we new going in what the research was going to produce, we wouldn’t need to do the research, now would we?

    It’s called a business plan.

    I agree that the site may not be the best, but, okay, tell me where would be better. I just really hate it when something like this is proposed and people immediately want to tear it down in favor of their pet pie in the sky idea (rail). And I think part of the problem is that you want everything concrete and mapped out. To some degree, that just isn’t how academic research (which part of this will be) works. You want to go from A to B to C. The research may go from A to 1 to blue. The basis of the article for you is the negatives. For me, this is a great base to figure out where this would be best to locate, who would be best to get involved, etc. I can picture a multitude or applications from biofuels, biofilms, alternative energy, drug discovery and development, locavorism, etc. I am guessing I cannot convince you of any of this, but wanted to explain where I was coming from, which isn’t from a Pollyanna view.

    #332041

    gramarye
    Participant

    Tenzo wrote >>

    And you want me to show you profitability and patent possibilities? If we new going in what the research was going to produce, we wouldn’t need to do the research, now would we?

    It’s called a business plan.

    Hypothetical based on 3.14 seconds of navel-gazing:

    (1a) Using the resources of OSU, ODA, and possibly Battelle and other institutions, develop algae-based synthetic fuel competitive with the technology currently being researched by the Pentagon, as noted in the Guardian article. Focus on a cheaper, lower-intensity product that would not need to be held to military standards of precision.

    (1b) Improve upon the Pentagon technology by standing on the shoulders of those who have already worked in this field and designing a way to manufacture the systems and grow the algae more cheaply, becoming part of the prediction that the cost is heading lower.

    (2a) Engineer and commercialize an economy-grade, tank-based hydroponic system that could fit in an average backyard and extract meaningful quantities of algae-based synthetic fuel once per week, for consumer use.

    (2b) Pursue a contract with the Pentagon for a scalable industrial-scale production and extraction system that could allow for, inter alia, military bases to produce their own fuel on-site. (Columbus has more connections with the defense industry than is commonly appreciated.)

    (3a) Sell the consumer-oriented system with a multi-year contract to buy any excess fuel produced by said consumer, allowing consumer purchasers to (a) produce fuel for their own use and (b) have a guaranteed buyer for any excess produced, while (a) increasing the marketability of the farming equipment notwithstanding possible aesthetic drawbacks of having a Star Wars moisture farming operation in one’s backyard and (b) allowing the facility to both act as a retailer of the equipment and as a distributor of the biofuels produced.

    The economically and socially attractive end result: a military that can produce fuels in quantity at any air force base with a ready water supply (and algae can grow in water that would not meet government standards for human consumption); a distributor of consumer- and industrial-grade biofuels located at a major Midwestern transportation hub (i.e., Columbus); a scalable and distributed production infrastructure substantially more resistant to supply shocks than the existing petroleum-fuel-based infrastructure, which is heavily reliant on coastal infrastructure and therefore vulnerable to extreme weather along the coasts, as was evidenced during the Katrina/Rita episode of 2005.

    I’m sure there are problems with this vision, since I just rattled it off the top of my head. Nevertheless, the technology is not more than a generation beyond our current capabilities and Columbus is already a place where future generations of technology are gradually made reality. The ingredients are there. Do I have all the answers? No. But I see enough pieces of the puzzle to know that it can be pieced together somehow, and good job (and good money) to the person who manages to do so.

    #332042

    Parker
    Participant

    groundrules wrote >>

    Parker wrote >>
    The name was initially to throw a bone to Arshot if they would support this rather than a race track. The name will likely change so it’s nothing to get hung up on. As far as the partners – the project was developed by researchers at Ohio State and it has been presented to ODA and has their support, albeit informally at this early idea stage. The only potential partner on the list that has not been approached yet is the City.
    I like the idea of integrating the community into the mix with job training and placement.

    okay, so this sort of confirms what I was suggesting- an idea has been hatched, and parties have been “approached” but these are far from solidified relationships. Calling them partners seems premature. All and all, the portrayal of this project to this point kind of doesn’t pass the smell test.

    What’s your smell test? Where is the error in “potential partners”? What, exactly, would you reasonably expect from a one-pager? Or is this a game of gotcha? I’m not sure what you are implying.

    The extent of the idea is at the level of what was provided in the 2005 redevelopment study. For the project to warrant more effort, I would imagine the current option would first need to expire.

    #332043

    uflyit
    Member

    I’m impressed with the path this group is taking in providing another alternative to the race track. I believe with all the publicity of the racetrack/ dragstrip, it still isn’t a good choice at all. The noise,and lack of use 8 months out of the year doesn’t help a community reeling from unemployment, nor puts money back into the struggling businesses in the area. I have spoken to the lady I believe started this whole idea about the “Sky Gardens”, Mary Rhinehart,she has been brain storming this idea for the last three years. Knowing that the stadium would soon be vacated by the Clippers in 2008,she became involved in the group ROAR (Redevelop Our Area Responsibly).But thought of an alternate idea that would give our community a boost with a long term, eco-friendly,”green”type building,higher employment,and a research and development facility that would be the only one I know of in the US and is much more exciting prospect than the race track next to downtown and within 100 yards of a nursing home,apartments,school,and other business that wouldn’t like hearing engines revving during work hours.
    From what I am hearing the “sound study” group for Schottensteins group, said that a 20-30’tall wall would be needed all around the racetrack to properly contain the sound…..I don’t think so, sound travels over walls,and looking at the wall would be like having a prison in downtown again. The race track is not the right choice for our community,and I feel Schottenstiens is trying to pull this over the communities eyes,and put lip stick on a pig. They should be looking at helping with the Sky Gardens project,and drop the race track proposal.
    I feel Mary has been very instrumental in the “Sky Garden” idea,and is pushing ahead to provide a business plan with costing,and budget concerns addressed. I feel that the “Sky Garden” project would provide much higher paying jobs,year round employment,and will bring scientist,and researchers from all around the world to see this.It’s not a pie in the shy idea,but a job creating,food providing,research facility,for or ailing community. I’m all for it,and want to see this happen.

    #332044

    Parker
    Participant

    uflyit wrote >>
    From what I am hearing the “sound study” group for Schottensteins group, said that a 20-30’tall wall would be needed all around the racetrack to properly contain the sound…..I don’t think so, sound travels over walls,and looking at the wall would be like having a prison in downtown again. The race track is not the right choice for our community,and I feel Schottenstiens is trying to pull this over the communities eyes,and put lip stick on a pig. They should be looking at helping with the Sky Gardens project,and drop the race track proposal. .

    I’m glad someone else has brought this up – sound traveling over walls. This is a fact stated in sound abatement guidelines for highway sound walls. Deflection is an issue as well as the way in which sound travels beyond the “shadow” (effective area) of the walls. Sound walls only lessen the noise for those within the area they are designed to protect, and there is a limit based on height and material. No current technology exists for this.

    If not the sky gardens, then something else that works for the community and will not be a potential nuisance.

    #332045
    Manatee
    Manatee
    Participant

    I don’t mean to be too negative right off the bat, since this is all new technology and as such is experimental, which in a way is of course an asset.

    But the startup costs do worry me. It seems like a lot of energy to invest on a risky proposition, when other systems, already proven, can efficiently utilize the sun’s energy with less input at the outset.

    There are potential benefits. But I can’t help thinking we’ll end up descending out of this tower arrangement in less than 20 years, after ammassing tons of data that tells us it’s more efficient to better use the land we have now.

    Basically, this would just be a large terrarium, right? Trying to, in effect, stack several earths on top of each other? Sort of like a condensed version of a terracing system one would see on the side of a hill.

    Very interesting to think about. I can see many plusses, and many minuses.

    #332046

    Parker
    Participant

    Manatee wrote >>
    I don’t mean to be too negative right off the bat, since this is all new technology and as such is experimental, which in a way is of course an asset.
    But the startup costs do worry me. It seems like a lot of energy to invest on a risky proposition, when other systems, already proven, can efficiently utilize the sun’s energy with less input at the outset.
    There are potential benefits. But I can’t help thinking we’ll end up descending out of this tower arrangement in less than 20 years, after ammassing tons of data that tells us it’s more efficient to better use the land we have now.
    Basically, this would just be a large terrarium, right? Trying to, in effect, stack several earths on top of each other? Sort of like a condensed version of a terracing system one would see on the side of a hill.
    Very interesting to think about. I can see many plusses, and many minuses.

    I think you are right about the descending from the towers idea…
    See my post on the other thread related to the Sky or Vertical Farm idea. The vertical farm idea is different from this food and energy park idea, which would use existing technology to current benefit as well as research new potentials for food and energy, and at a human scale.

    #332047
    Manatee
    Manatee
    Participant

    I would be very interested if this was focusing on permaculture techniques, which in my mind are the next generation of agricultural innovations.

    Life will grow almost anywhere if we get out of the way, and regulate itself very well. I think permaculture is a way to “dip into” this huge recycling of energy, with very little energy investment on our own part.

    #332048
    alove
    alove
    Participant

    The should offer free/reasonably-priced tours.

    #332049

    myliftkk
    Participant

    Thought I might point out since some doubt whether or not the economics for a farming/energy research park would work out in columbus. Economically speaking, it’s been proven that geographical specialization in certain economic segments is pretty arbitrary in that many times, if you build it/nuture it, they do in fact come to fruition (Krugman discovered this, among others). If columbus was in fact to start a strong farming/energy research partnership that encouraged incubation and experiementation (vertical farms, aquaponics, etc), it very well could turn into a pretty strong local industry, but it does imply that people get involved in promoting industrial policy.

    #332050
    Manatee
    Manatee
    Participant

    If we got into experimental farming here we’d also have to get into experimental food distribution systems. This would enable us to beef up the local supply side. I would love to see a community kitchen processing facility usable by small scale local food producers. Is that a little bit what the upstairs kitchen at the North Market does?

    I’ve always dreamed that Columbus would become a center for ecologically integrated agriculture, because we were a cowtown after all, and I’d like us to reap (literally) the benefits.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 32 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE