We already have greenhouses, which are a lot cheaper to build than underground farms, and you get the light for free. I’m not seeing the economics on this work out en masse. The only case I know of where indoor electrically-lit farming has succeeded in general is contraband, for obvious reasons.
I’m not sure about that. I mean, the crops won’t freeze, but you have to go awfully deep underground to get “warm”. How many crops will grow well in never changing 50 degree temps?
The waste heat from the LEDs would provide much more heat then you ever need. And even if the LEDs were 100% efficient (theoretically impossible), all the light was eventually become heat. I think the underground farm would need a powerful ventilation system to get rid of the heat.
P. S. IF nuclear power or fusion power becomes mainstream, then LED illuminated farms may become a good use of surplus electricity at night. Unless electric cars end up using all the electricity at night, then there may not be any surplus.
Ever been to Whole Foods? 
I was going to say that almost sounded like a “solar powered flashlight.”
Leafy crops like lettuce and basil can be grown indoors under 24 light; they grow much faster.
Some plants like tomatoes and pot can be started in 24 hour light to quickly reach the desired size, then switched over to 12 hour light for flowering and fruiting. They grow much faster; you may be able to get up to six crops per year instead of just one that you could grow with natural light.
No need to heat the space – the lights provide more than enough heat. People starting indoor gardening tend to buy too much light and not enough exhaust fan. The heat also makes the plants grow faster – most plants evolved when the earth was much warmer than it is today and they thrive at 100 degrees or so, with a boost of CO2 to mimic the conditions under which they evolved.
When you are using a 12/12 light/dark cycle you can have adjacent rooms with opposite cycles. You then can vent excess heat from a “light” room into a “dark” room. I’ve heard.
On the other hand, all you need is a tiny breach in such a system allowing even one bug to get in, and a raging infestation can develop in a short time.
Insect problems that are nonexistent to minimal when I grow plants outdoors, tend to suddenly mushroom in my basement light garden when the climate is controlled and there’s no competition/predation as would be found outside.
And the massive power consumption required for huge indoor LED farms leads me to doubt it’s (as yet) an environmentally friendly solution.
An indoor grow without a fresh breeze also is at risk for mold.
Cite?
I doubt 1 in 50 farmers have heard of it, outside of the marijuana industry.
There are actually autoflowering hybrids now that do not require dark periods to flower.
Even at best, you’re only converting a little less than half of the energy that falls on a solar cell into electricity, and then you lose more transporting it and converting that electricity back into light. You’d still have to have quite a bit more land covered in solar arrays than it would take to just grow the crops outright. I suppose maybe if you had a lot of solar arrays on non-arable land, and something like nuclear energy so that power was really cheap and relatively clean, it could make sense to use LED lighting to illuminate some kind of indoor farm in places where there isn’t much sun, or the conditions aren’t right, etc…
But that’s a pretty big assumption to make that it’s cheaper to say… grow indoor tomatoes with LEDs in Vorkuta rather than importing them from somewhere else in the world that can grow them cheaply with normal sunlight.
Agree, once I thought about it for a bit. The obvious way to do this is to make the top and sides of the modules out of plastic or glass, and have them out on the ground. They might have LEDs so you get light at night as well when the power is cheap, but it’s stupid to not take advantage of free light when it’s so much energy to make it artificially.
So essentially it’s a modular, robotic greenhouse that is sealed for very little water loss. It would still have a big advantage in that you could put these modules where the land is not unsuitable for farming.
The problem with vertical farming is that it doesn’t take into account how much food is really produced.
Sure, you could probably economically do some level of it for specialty produce. If you could hand someone in NY a tomato fresh off the vine in the middle of winter, you could probably charge enough for that tomato to make it economically viable. This makes such foods available, but not exactly affordable.
There is no way that staples like wheat or corn or soy can be grown in this way. It would increase the price of all our staple foods to levels where only those who are pretty well off could afford to eat.
Now, if we completely change our crops and staples, and instead of growing corn or wheat, we are growing a bioengineered superfood algae, that may be economical, depending on where you get your electricity and lighting.
Maybe with 3D printing technology, we could take that algae, and inject flavor, texture and color while printing, and we may be able to make passable imitations of foods we know and enjoy now.
But, the way we eat is barely (and possible not even that) sustainable as is, without completely changing the way we eat, and what we eat, any sort of farming “improvements” will not be economical, and will likely end up with more hungry people in the end.
Ok, right now, today, thanks to tractors and other labor savers, the limit on farming is available freshwater and available arable land. Irrigation and synthetic fertilizer can relax some of those limits, but there is finite freshwater in an area - on the West Coast, they have managed to basically consume all of it. The Colorado River doesn’t make it to the ocean, all the water gets used for the cities or farms, and yet there is still desert.
Vertical farming modules are expensive pieces of manufactured equipment, but they mean you don’t need to own finite land or finite freshwater. They use so much less water (since water doesn’t evaporate, primary losses are that plants do consume water to grow more tissue) that you can just get the water from the ocean with reverse osmosis. You just need to make a lot of equipment. At a minimum, you need to build nuclear reactors to power the lights, the modules and all their systems including air conditioners and robots, and the reverse osmosis plants to water them.
It requires far more technology and manufacturing ability per unit of food produced, but there’s basically no upper limit. You could probably support hundreds of billions of humans if not more than a trillion on this planet, in theory.
Well, in recent times, the rise of China has reduced manufacturing costs immensely. Not just cheap labor - there are now amazing industrial robots bringing the cost down even further. And it’s going to get better - a lot better. Eventually, there may be robotic factories that use machine learning, where you just send the design of what you want to manufacture, and the factory reconfigures itself to make that item and the robots have enough intelligence to fill the gaps. Those factories would probably be capable of being sent the design for components in the robots used in themselves, making them essentially self replicating…
Sounds like someone with experience.
Right now there is land in Russia and Africa that is underutilized and could made much more productive with modern methods. Instead of hydroponics the money would be better spent getting these farmers better varietes of plants and modern techniques and improving the infrastructure so they can get their crop to market.
http://thebricspost.com/china-to-step-up-farm-investment-in-russias-far-east/#.WNwhp2_yt9M