No. It never will, despite all of the admittedly cool proof-of-concepts. The energy required to photosynthesize will never be more economical from artificial lighting than the sun. The future of farming (in the U.S.) is better soil management, agro-forestry, and removing archaic systems of subsidies which favor corn and beef to the detriment of human and environmental health.
Underground crops are cool, but they cannot feed the planet
- They can be harvested and then delivered to the customer the same day, some places will pay for this type of high end service
- Indoor crops grow quicker than outdoor ones due to the optimized conditions. For already fast growing crops like greens that means you can have more harvests per year.
- Being able to be located in a densely populated area greatly expands the labor pool
- Vastly improved labor conditions by virtue of being indoors and not bending over to the ground all day
Many people are commenting about how wasteful it is to use LEDs instead of sunlight. But again, as the owner says in the video, consumers expect produce all year round. That might not be possible in winter or poor light. The alternative is to import out-of-season food from abroad. Or to return to eating seasonal produce only. How many consumers are willing to accept that? Not many I'm guessing.
Also, the owner of the farm states he saves over 70% water use over conventional farming. That's a massive saving.
So yes, underground farming won't solve the world's food problems but it seems like it could play a role alongside conventional farming.
There is one thing missing from the video though: What do the crops taste like?
Firstly, geography: there are places with somewhat long periods of darkness and/or cold, where agriculture is feasible only during the relatively short, but often intense, summer season. For example mid-to-northern parts of the Nordics. Indoor farming can deliver throughout the year.
Secondly, logistics/sustainability/locality: it's more sustainable to farm locally than to transport something from the other end of the world, or even from the other side of the country. I've seen onions from New Zealand in the shops here in the Nordics and it's probably normal but I thought it was downright weird.
Thirdly, organic farming: by being able to control the growth environment, the amount of pesticides and insecticides should be greatly reduced, maybe even down to nothing.
Fourthly, the known-unknown future: an ongoing major change in climate will likely make some of the nowadays arable land non-arable. For example rising sea levels threaten rice production in low areas of Asia, and so on. Dr. Gwynne Dyer spoke (in "Geopolitics in a Hotter World") of a rule of thumb where one degree (Celsius) rise in average global temperatures loses 10% of global food production. If we expect over 3 degrees then one third of global food production will be gone. Maybe that's OK if the world becomes better in logistics, but I think the key is to grow locally and indoor farming is possible basically anywhere.
However, they are great for specialty crops that require lab testing for purity and quality before being sold to the general public. These include crops like cannabis and mushrooms.
In the state of California alone there are nearly 40 million people. That is a big enough market to support allot of firms. ~O
There is a hudge market for
I guess the real question is, "what are the amortized costs of growing using solar panels and LEDs compared to fields", and that's a super hard problem to solve/estimate. So far, people have only been growing high-profit crops, so it seems like the economics don't favor interior growing yet even for well-heeled players.
Also crops that need very specific conditions to grow might not do well as our climate shifts, and growing in a carefully controlled indoor farm could fill demand, though at a high cost.
What about in places where electrical energy is abundant, and space is limited? Or maybe in locations where terrain is very difficult to farm on. Mountainous terrain provides a lot of potential hydro-power, but are terrible places to place farms.
Would a dam powered multi-storied indoor farm be a feasible solution in a situation like this? Not to mention, it could provide light 24/7.
Not being facetious here. Genuinely curious what the pros and cons would be to a farm designed this way.
I think a more realistic approach to mountain farming would be what Sepp Holzer does in the Austrian Alps.
Cannabis growers don't use grow lights in doors because it's more efficient. Sunlight, is the least of a farmer's worries.
We are already using of a large fraction of the arable land that is well suited to outdoor grain cultivation. It isn't clear that yields can be increased enough to feed people as we approach peak Earth population.
Indoor growing allows for an extension of agriculture to new land. Efficient Climate control, combined with high efficiency LEDs with optimized output spectra make the concept more viable.
It will be more expensive than current outdoor-based agriculture, but we'll be wealthier by the time this is needed.
What about capturing and redirecting natural light, to replace or supplement the grow lights?
I've seen "light well" systems that direct natural light around the building using mirrors and tubes (e.g. in office buildings to decrease lighting costs and combat seasonal affective disorder), so this seems like a natural extension of that concept.
I especially loathe articles that state near the end that energy consumption currently is quite high, but that they are working on optimizing that.
You can not optimize your system out of the hard dependency between photons and photosynthesis. Period.