The energy use would be heavy, but it might be worth the cost given the transportation energy savings and higher productivity and happiness of the city population.
Source: Me in wintertime Sweden.
My understanding is that (a) utilization of dietary vitamin D is significantly lower than naturally produced D (from sun exposure) and (b) vitamin D is one of several micronutrients produced from sun exposure.
The end product of UVB irradiated skin (i.e., sunlight) is vitamin D3. (D3 is "activated" locally in tissues utilizing it.) Ingested D3 supplements effectively add to the body's supply, though the optimum intake is controversial and varies among individuals.
One difference between sunlight and supplements is that D3 production via UVB exposure has an upper bound, only so much can be made because there's a limited amount of substrate available in skin cells to convert to vitamin D. The upshot is sunlight is "safer" re: potential toxicity of excessive vitamin D intake.
AFAIK vitamin D is unique among nutritional factors in its reliance on UVB exposure. Don't know of any other micronutrients directly related to sunlight, but possible there's something I've overlooked.
So the advise is to take D supplements only if recommended by a doctor.
Presumed deficiency of D (per lab studies) is quite common here and supplementation is usually recommended for optimum health. Besides location, lifestyle factors often reduce sun exposure increasing chances of low D level.
There are tradeoffs involved with most recommendations. The common advice to avoid UV exposure re: melanoma risk has propelled manufacture of sunscreens into a big industry. Sunscreens filter out nearly all UVB, and interfere with forming D. Ironically, low body stores of D may increase cancer risk according to some studies. BTW my dermatologist knows about that, nonetheless advocates minimizing cancer risk, worrying less about vitamin D deficiency or risks of supplementation.
Indigenous Alaskan populations were always vulnerable to D deficiency yet it was uncommon, probably associated with their diet, rich in the oils of sea-going animals, known sources of D. Out of curiosity, a while back based on published info I calculated their intake of vitamin D was roughly 1500-2000IU/day. This seems consistent with opinions of some researchers re: appropriate intake level (don't have the references at hand--I can locate them if there's interest).
The jury's still out on vitamin D in terms of its functions and dietary requirement. It is a fascinating story that with any luck will be at least better resolved in my lifetime.
As for D supplements, one really should very careful even in cases of high latitudes (and this is the reason I avoid D supplements despite living at 61th parallel). Quoting Paul Albert , http://bacteriality.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Albert_IO... :
So are we really facing an epidemic of vitamin D "deficiency" or are we simply beginning to note more signs of an imminent epidemic of chronic disease – an epidemic which would be exacerbated by increasing the amount of vitamin D added to our food supply?
For circadian light you just need something that is sufficiently bright and blue. ... or just blue for that matter, blue LEDs are cheap and efficient.
None of this can improve surroundings that are otherwise unpleasant...
A building's function is to block unpleasant sun, but a window's function is to let it in and to control it. Artificial sunlight could enable more control over the sunlight factor.
Regarding circadian rhythm, it is not fully understood and blue light may not be the only important factor. Perhaps the visual sense that there is sunlight is also an important cue. But yes, blue light is clearly important. I would hope that any public lighting system would strongly take it into account.
For example, the color and feel should reflect what happens in the natural world! The LED lights being installed on city streets right now might cause problems for us (not to mention the blue light in our screens).
Unpleasant surroundings take a huge toll on people in cities. I am dismayed by the noise, pollution, lack of overhead cover, and threatening cars when I walk around SOMA and so many other places. A single tech like artificial sunlight won't cure all ills, but it is a tool that will help cities become larger and more livable.
Construction robotics, new materials, methods to better maintain plants and trees, and obviously transportation are also important tools in this fight.
There must be some scientific knowdlegde regarding this that I ignore.
What we consider sunlight is essentially the light emitted by any object at 6000K, which is reasonably easy to achieve but somewhat difficult to contain. And actually mimicking the sun is usually not the best method (for one, the unfiltered UV would be very unhealthy). It's possible to approximate the visible part of that light though, and we're gradually getting better at it.