A Closer look at Vertical Farming  

The UnPlanner (soon to depart from Fresno in a strategic "head for the hills" style move) started the whole "Vertical Farming" ball rolling a few months ago, which eventually got covered by quite a wide range of Peak Oil and Viridian sites.

He now has a post up looking at the idea in more detail and concludes what I'd always suspected - vertical farms aren't really going to be worth the effort.

Conventional modern farming is already a caloric loser. Vertical farming would in all likelihood be far worse, even though it solves the land and transportation arguments. (less embodied energy than those 3000 mile Caesar Salads) The stated necessity to feed an additional 2.3 billion people by 2050 and conserve land, is an argument of dubious worth. If these facilities increase yields and make food more wide spread, population will continue to grow, necessitating yet more vertical farms. As with most people, the Medical Ecology team believes in the argument that population drives the food supply. In actuality, it is the available food supply drives population growth (or decline).In the end there are two predictions for the future of vertical farms: