The high cost of closed-system urban farming based on electrically generated photosynthetic light

Feb 20, 2014 by Stacey Shackford
Indoor urban farms called wasteful, 'pie in the sky'
Traditional greenhouses like this one, which produces hydroponic lettuce in Dryden, N.Y., are a more sustainable form of controlled-environment agriculture than indoor urban gardens, according to environmental engineer Louis Albright. Credit: Jason Koski/University Photography

(Phys.org) —It seems a sensible solution to urban space constraints and a desire for increased local food production: transform abandoned warehouses into indoor farms, or construct purpose-built vertical food factories.

But Louis Albright, an emeritus professor of biological and environmental engineering who helped pioneer controlled-environment agriculture, warns that these "high in the sky" proposals intended to reduce and rejuvenate communities may prove to be "pie in the sky" concepts with detrimental impacts on the environment.

In a Feb. 10 lecture hosted by the Department of Horticulture, Albright argued that closed-system urban farming based on electrically generated photosynthetic light would result in food production with high cost, large energy use, a giant carbon footprint and incompatibility with some forms of renewable energy.

He estimated that around 8 pounds of carbon dioxide would be generated at the power plant per pound of lettuce in such a system – each head of lettuce would create, at the power plant, enough CO2 to fill three 55-gallon drums, and the carbon emissions generated by growing 4,000 heads of lettuce would be equivalent to the annual emissions of a passenger car.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

Other crops would be even less sustainable, Albright said. The carbon footprint of tomatoes grown in a food factory would be more than double that of lettuce, and it would cost about $23 per loaf of bread to pay the electricity bill (at $0.10 per kilowatt-hour) for wheat grown in a warehouse farm, he estimated.

A better solution would be installing more traditional horizontal greenhouses around the perimeter of urban areas, he suggested. These "peri-urban" greenhouses would still reap many of the benefits of urban infrastructure – such as water, power, high-speed roads and other transportation options – while avoiding the phytotoxic effects of urban air pollution, and they would capture the most effective, cost-efficient source of energy for plants: the sun.

Glazed greenhouse windows aren't the perfect transmitters of solar energy – about 30 percent of light gets lost in cloudy Ithaca – but that 70 percent efficiency makes a huge difference, Albright said. In the case of lettuce, it reduces CO2-equivalent emissions to around 2.7 pounds per head – 300 percent less than in a completely closed system.

"LED technologies are improving, and the costs are shrinking, but don't believe the Internet," Albright said. "Even if they were to double their efficiency, we would still be looking at 4 pounds of CO2 per head of lettuce."

As for solar panels, they take up too much space to deliver the amount of energy needed – a one-acre crop of lettuce being grown in Ithaca in optimized conditions would require 9.3 acres of panels, he said. In addition, solar availability may not synchronize with need, leading to energy loss and the need for supplemental at other times.

"Must we violate the laws of physics to make it work? I'd prefer not to," Albright said.

Local food production is not always the most sustainable option, especially when growing crops out of season, Albright added. Even under optimal conditions, lettuce produced in Ithaca greenhouses has a that is barely better than lettuce transported from 3,000 miles away, he said.

"There's a lot of sentimental attachment to local food production, and the quality is likely to be better, but the phrase 'food miles' shouldn't scare people because the alternative isn't always better. A system viewpoint is critical," Albright said.

Explore further: High tunnel, open-field production systems compared for lettuce, tomato

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Researchers test effects of LEDs on leaf lettuce

Nov 19, 2013

In the life cycle of plants, most developmental processes are dependent on light. Significant biological processes such as germination, shade avoidance, circadian rhythms, and flower induction are all affected by light. Recent ...

Salt-tolerant crops show higher capacity for carbon fixation

Dec 12, 2011

Salt can have drastic effects on the growth and yield of horticultural crops; studies have estimated that salinity renders an about one-third of the world's irrigated land unsuitable for crop production. Imbalances in soil ...

Recommended for you

Dead floppy drive: Kenya recycles global e-waste

9 hours ago

In an industrial area outside Kenya's capital city, workers in hard hats and white masks take shiny new power drills to computer parts. This assembly line is not assembling, though. It is dismantling some ...

New paper calls for more carbon capture and storage research

14 hours ago

Federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must involve increased investment in research and development of carbon capture and storage technologies, according to a new paper published by the University of Wyoming's ...

Coal gas boom in China holds climate change risks

18 hours ago

Deep in the hilly grasslands of remote Inner Mongolia, twin smoke stacks rise more than 200 feet into the sky, their steam and sulfur billowing over herds of sheep and cattle. Both day and night, the rumble ...

User comments : 6

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2014
Good that someone finally looked at this fairytale tech and crunched the numbers.

300 percent less

What does that even mean? C'mon science journalists - you can do better than that.
verkle
not rated yet Feb 20, 2014
Very good analysis.

300 percent less means "1/3". (=2.7/8) The writer got carried away obviously.

ScooterG
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2014
Maybe the takeaway here is that most people don't give a rats ass about "carbon footprint" because

1) they don't believe (AGW) is real and/or

2) they've been brow-beat by enviro-do-gooder hypocrites (eg Al Gore) for so long that they're tired of hearing it?
ScooterG
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2014
"enough CO2 to fill three 55-gallon drums"

This is such a lame statement.

If drama is the objective, why not claim It is enough CO2 to fill three olympic-sized swimming pools?
casualjoe
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2014
He's based his calculations on lights that put out 3-4 mol/kWh which is old tech, there are lights that put out over 5 times that, skewing his calculations a lot, a loaf would cost $3.5 in electricity instead of $23.

Regardless, sustainable use of monoculture, herbicides, pesticides, fertiliser and water are clearly more pressing issues.
Itush
not rated yet Feb 23, 2014
Use fiber optics