Skyscrapers Full of Lettuce Promise an Eco-Friendly Alternative to Outdoor Farming. There’s Just One Problem.

Overeager VC firms, take note.

Jun Cen

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

For growing food, the sun is yesterday’s technology. Soil? As quaint as an iPod. Such are the promises of vertical farms—indoor towers stacked high with crops. Waterborne nutrients feed the plants, and led lights drive their photosynthesis.

The idea emerged back in 2000, when Columbia University microbiologist Dickson Despommier wondered why Manhattan’s abandoned buildings couldn’t be used to grow food as efficiently as they once housed people. Free from the primitive sway of sunlight and dirt, “vertical farming can allow former cropland to go back to nature and reverse the plundering of the earth,” Ian Frazier wrote in a 2017 New Yorker article about Despommier.

As drought and heat waves plague the globe’s major vegetable-growing regions, the idea of farming indoors is gaining traction. AeroFarms, a New Jersey-based operation, says it uses 95 percent less water than traditional farming to grow salad greens. Plenty, a South San Francisco-based vertical-farming startup, claims to churn out “up to 350 times as much produce per square foot as a conventional farm, while using just 1 percent of the water.”

Vertical farming certainly has lots of venture capital sex appeal. Plenty recently got the “largest agriculture technology investment in hist­ory”—$200 million—from the likes of Amazon boss Jeff Bezos’ fund and Innovation Endeavors, co-founded by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. AeroFarms counts former CIA chief David Petraeus and New York restaurateur David Chang as investors.

But here’s what the pitch decks probably don’t say: Vertical farming has a huge energy problem. Sunlight is free and renewable. Thus far, electricity is mostly neither. Just ask anyone who ever ran a grow house: Photosynthesis, the process by which plants transform light energy into calories, requires fossil fuels—unless your grow is powered by renewables, and most are not.

Virtually all vertical farming operations focus on lettuce and leafy greens. That’s in part because lettuce leaves are made up of 95 percent water, leaving relatively little heavy lifting for photosynthesis. Farming these greens indoors has obvious benefits: Most outdoor-grown lettuce comes from arid regions of California, which rely on irrigation from precious water pumped from stressed aquifers or diverted from rivers.

And by positioning themselves in or near cities, these startups brag they are cutting down on trucking emissions. If you live in New York, your wintertime salad greens likely come from 2,600 miles away in Arizona or California’s Imperial Valley. Bruce Bugbee, a professor of plant physiology at Utah State University, calculates that it takes about 5 kilojoules of energy to grow a gram of fresh lettuce and haul it in a refrigerated truck from California’s fields to Manhattan. Eliminating that expenditure, and the carbon emissions associated with it, seems like a win.

But Bugbee calculates that growing a gram of lettuce under electric light—assuming the most efficient LEDs on the market and maximum yields—requires 20 kilojoules of energy. In other words, even in the best-case scenario, it takes four times as much energy to grow lettuce indoors than it does to truck the crop across the country. Making matters worse, we still overwhelmingly rely on polluting coal and natural gas to give indoor operations their electric power. (Plenty, which purchases renewable energy where it can, says these calculations don’t take into account all of its operations’ energy efficiency.)

Other kinds of produce require even more energy. Take tomatoes. Like lettuce, they have high water content, but the fruit only accounts for half the plant’s biomass. The rest is stalks, stems, and leaves we throw out—all grown with electricity that is, in effect, wasted.

“We don’t view this as a zero-sum game,” says Matt Barnard, founder and CEO of Plenty. “We view this as adding another agriculture method to our portfolio.” He points out that more than half the country’s population lives east of the Mississippi River, while at least three-quarters of fresh produce is grown on the West Coast or imported. Bugbee and other critics counter that hybrid systems like winter greenhouses are more energy efficient than year-round vertical farms and can help increase food production in cold, densely populated regions.

But they are less alluring to tech-oriented investors. Companies like Plenty may succeed in squeezing enough efficiency out of their systems to profitably grow greens with artificial light on a large scale. “But just because something is profitable doesn’t mean it’s environmentally correct,” Bugbee says. “It means it’s economically correct.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate