Not at all. The farmland is highly unlikely to be used for any other purpose.
We're trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison here, not moral judgments.
We're trying to make an apples-to-apples comparison here, not moral judgments.
Deforestation for farmland has major implications here.
If you want to make and apples-to-apples comparison, you have to consider what turning a thousand square miles of forest into farmland does versus stacking these containers up.
This solution also claims to use 10X less water, so we can start to factor in energy use related to water production as well.
Meanwhile, thousands of people can live in just a few acres in the city. Far more people per kg of asphalt and concrete!
Which is the kind of efficiencies you expect with economies of scale.
You'd be surprised how much asphalt and concrete we use to give every 500 person village roads and infrastructure!
If you want to every manufacturing side-cost (metal/copper wire tractor turbine) and amount of CO2 you'll end up with an impossibly difficult calculation, at least for these comment sections.
I don't care to aim so high. I'm happy to compare $ cost farm costs & transport versus $ vertical-farm cost & electricity bill.
> energy use related to water production
Isn't that highly location dependant? Do these farm not run off the public water supply? If so, I'd assume the energy cost was higher for drinkable water.
Literally just looking at the economics here, I'll say again.