244K views · Sep 18, 2015 · 46:48 · 4 HN recommenders · 12 mentions · discussed 2017–2025
Utah State plant scientist Bruce Bugbee presents his analysis of the energy and environmental costs of vertical and indoor farming. He argues artificial lighting cannot compete with sunlight in fields or greenhouses.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN uses it as the go-to rebuttal to vertical farming hype, since it gives hard numbers from a leading controlled-environment authority.
“he does give hard numbers to do the math that shows that vertical farming is not as good as its proponents have made it out to be”HN comment, 2025
“Been sending this video to every charlatan pushing vertical farming for years now.”
The math against vertical farming is insurmountable.
this video Been sending this video to every charlatan pushing vertical farming for years now. The math is pretty obvious and insurmountable on this one.
“A very informed and informative lecture filled with facts”
Informative lecture backing the argument against vertical farming.
A very informed and informative lecture filled with facts that supports the former argument: this video Myself I am a chemical engineer working in agricultural research. We are working on aquaponics and also test vertical growbeds. Vertical growbeds underperform significantly unless you put expensive light on them. Generating the electricity for light through PV uses about ten times the area compared to using direct sunlight. No way to counter that by using the full spectrum.
“A very informed and informative lecture filled with facts that supports this argument”
Informative lecture backing the argument.
A very informed and informative lecture filled with facts that supports this argument: this video Myself I am a chemical engineer working in agricultureal research. We are working on aquaponics and also test vertical growbeds. Vertical growbrds underperform significantly unless you put expensive light on them.
“a lecture by the preeminent authority in the field, Bruce Bugbee”
Lecture by a leading authority on controlled-environment growing.
Why Vertical Farming Won't Save the Planet [0] is a lecture by the preeminent authority in the field, Bruce Bugbee, Utah State University Department of Plants, Soils and Climate, who has studied plant growth in controlled environments for most of his career and has consulted on all NASA missions with these goals. In particular see 13m26s[1] and 37m17s[2]. [0] this video [1] this video [2] this video
“For the fundamentals”
Fundamentals of why indoor farming struggles.
This article is all over the place and then apparently quotes an academic out of context. The real problem with indoor farming is not setup cost. For the fundamentals: this video ... Bruce Bugbee, Utah State University Department of Plants, Soils and Climate, has studied plant growth in controlled environments for most of his career presents the results of his analysis of the environmental effects of Vertical Farming/Indoor Agriculture (September 2015). With regards to the machinery shown at the top of the article, it is standard industrial automation equipment you can purchase off the shelf, apparently not even hardened or substantially adjusted for outdoor use.
“he does give hard numbers to do the math that shows that vertical farming is not as good as its proponents have made it out to be”
Hard numbers showing vertical farming trails outdoor agriculture economics.
Unsurprising. I'm not sure much has changed since this recording of Bruce Bugbee's talk "Why Vertical Farming Won't Save the Planet". There's nothing surprising there but he does give hard numbers to do the math that shows that vertical farming is not as good as its proponents have made it out to be. Solar energy input dwarfs all other energy inputs to agriculture, and the cost to replace one acre of solar energy with electricity comes out to $400,000 per acre (per some unit of days per a growing season). I don't think the economics have tended favorably since. The space needs for solar panels doesn't favor vertical farming either. He also shows the efficiency of modern agriculture, and why vertical farming has a pretty tall order ahead of it to beat the economics of outdoor farming. It's quite unlikely factors have changed enough since to alter his conclusion: only high-value, high-water-content specialty crops might be economically viable. [0] = this video
“vertical/indoor farming is great for leafy greens, but much harder for other plants.”
Analysis of environmental effects of indoor farming.
See previous recent discussion of indoor/vertical farming (1). As discussed on that thread, vertical/indoor farming is great for leafy greens, but much harder for other plants. See this video [2] - "Why Vertical Farming Won't Save the Planet: Bruce Bugbee, Utah State University Department of Plants, Soils and Climate, has studied plant growth in controlled environments for most of his career. Here he presents the results of his analysis of the environmental effects of Vertical Farming/Indoor Agriculture (September 2015)". A copy of the slides can be downloaded here (the link shown on the youtube page is dead - correct link[3]). [1] link [2] this video [3] link
“Artificially lit farming can't compete with field production or heated/unheated greenhouses.”
Artificial lighting cannot compete with field or greenhouse production.
>greenhouse + aquaponics + high levels of automation seems to work well Indeed, that's a big point in the video. Artificially lit farming can't compete with field production or heated/unheated greenhouses. link to time this video
“estimated USD$400,000 worth of solar energy per acre of land from outdoor growing”
Estimate of solar energy value per acre.
Beanstalk is an indoor farming startup that grows produce at the cost of outdoor farming. Sure about that? With no details at all on the website, I will believe this guy first, who in late 2015 estimated USD$400,000 worth of solar energy per acre of land from outdoor growing. this video this video
“Utah State’s Extension service did a good analysis”
Good analysis of indoor farming energy costs.
Maybe for expensive microgreens. Otherwise your energy costs are prohibitive. Utah State’s Extension service did a good analysis [1]. Indoor farming energy costs only add about 30% to your cost of tomatoes, but 10,000% for wheat. Of course this assumes you can get an acre of indoor space for the same price as an acre of cropland. And can also amportize your hardware costs over many growing seasons to drive them to zero. Probably not good assumptions. [1] this video
“I think OP is referring to Bruce Bugbee from Utah state”
Identifies the researcher with the same conclusion.
I think OP is referring to Bruce Bugbee from Utah state this video Even if it isn't him the conclusion is the same.
“vertical/indoor farming is great for leafy greens (mainly water but but not much other nutrients or carbon), but much harder for other plants.”
Analysis of indoor farming's environmental effects.
Also see previous recent discussion of indoor/vertical farming (2017) - (1) and (2). As discussed on that thread, vertical/indoor farming is great for leafy greens (mainly water but but not much other nutrients or carbon), but much harder for other plants. See this video [3] - "Why Vertical Farming Won't Save the Planet: Bruce Bugbee, Utah State University Department of Plants, Soils and Climate, has studied plant growth in controlled environments for most of his career. Here he presents the results of his analysis of the environmental effects of Vertical Farming/Indoor Agriculture (September 2015)". A copy of the slides can be downloaded here (the link shown on the youtube page is dead - correct link[4]). [1] link [2] link [3] this video [4] link
