Comment on Korean Smart Farm....... by dickie

dickie · 6/4/2026, 5:53:10 AM · permalink

![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2835/1780552388978-514ab0a68da62c72.png)
  
  
The article highlights impressive technology, but I keep coming back to a simple question: does it make economic sense to replace free sunlight with purchased electricity?

This is especially clear with a crop like watermelon. Outdoors, the sun provides virtually all of the light energy needed to grow the plant and ripen the fruit. In a fully enclosed vertical farm, every photon has to come from an LED powered by the electric grid. As electricity prices rise, that becomes a major cost built into every melon.

A greenhouse already solves much of the year-round growing problem without abandoning the sun. It captures free solar energy while still protecting crops from cold, wind, rain, pests and unpredictable weather. Heat, fans and supplemental lighting may still be needed, especially in winter, but the sun remains the primary engine.

That makes the greenhouse a more sensible middle ground. It extends the season, improves control and reduces weather risk, but it does not require buying all the light from the power company. For watermelons, that difference matters. A field-grown or greenhouse-grown melon receives its light for free. An LED-only melon carries the cost of artificial light, climate control, pumps, fans, equipment and automation all the way to harvest.

So why is LED-only vertical farming continually pushed? Because the story is attractive. It promises local food, less water use, fewer pesticides, automation, climate resilience, food security and high-tech agriculture. Those benefits are real in some cases. It can make sense for microgreens, herbs, seedlings, research crops, pharmaceuticals or premium greens grown close to urban markets.

But the same logic does not automatically apply to larger fruits and staple crops. A watermelon is not a tray of basil. It takes space, time, leaf area and a lot of light. For that kind of crop, LED-only farming often becomes a technological way of buying sunlight.

The question is not whether we can grow watermelons under artificial lights. We can. The question is whether it is economically smarter than using the giant fusion reactor that rises in the east every morning.

For watermelons, the better path is probably not a warehouse full of LEDs. It is field production when the season allows, greenhouses for season extension and research, and limited supplemental lighting only where it actually pays for itself.

14 bumps

dickie · 6/4/2026, 6:36:32 AM · permalink

The vertical farming industry is not failing because the technology does not work. It is struggling because the economics often do not work.

The promise is easy to understand: grow food near cities, use less water, avoid pesticides, eliminate weather risk, automate labor and produce fresh crops year-round. That story has attracted governments, investors and media attention, especially in countries with expensive land, import dependence or food-security concerns.

But the industry’s first major wave has exposed a hard limit: electricity. Fully enclosed vertical farms do not just use electricity to run pumps, sensors, fans and computers. They use electricity to replace the sun. That makes the business model extremely sensitive to power prices.

The results have been rough. Bowery Farming, once valued around $2 billion and backed by hundreds of millions in venture capital, shut down in 2024. Plenty filed for bankruptcy in 2025 after raising nearly $1 billion, though it later emerged from restructuring. AeroFarms filed for Chapter 11 in 2023 and survived, but only after narrowing its focus. AppHarvest also filed for bankruptcy. These were not fringe companies. They were among the flagship names in controlled-environment agriculture.

The pattern is becoming clear. Vertical farming works best where the crop is small, fast-growing, high-value and sold at a premium. Microgreens, herbs, specialty lettuces, seedlings, research crops and possibly pharmaceutical crops can fit that model. Large fruits, staple crops and commodity vegetables usually do not.

A watermelon makes the problem obvious. A watermelon needs space, time, leaf area and a lot of light. Outdoors, the light is free. In a greenhouse, most of the light is still free, with protection from weather and the option for supplemental heat or lighting. In an LED-only farm, every photon is purchased from the power company.

That is why greenhouses look like the more durable model for many crops. They solve much of the year-round production problem while still using sunlight as the primary energy source. A heated greenhouse is not free to operate, especially in cold climates, but it does not begin by throwing away the cheapest input in agriculture.

The vertical farming industry is therefore separating into two categories. One category is realistic: high-value crops, urban premium markets, seedling production, automation technology, research systems and specialty controlled-environment agriculture. The other category is overextended: the idea that warehouses full of LEDs can broadly replace farms and greenhouses.

The lesson is not that vertical farming is useless. The lesson is that it is not a universal farming revolution. It is a specialized tool. The industry’s future probably belongs less to giant lettuce factories and more to hybrid systems, greenhouses, targeted crops, better automation and careful energy math.

Technology can improve farming, but it cannot repeal basic thermodynamics. The sun is still the cheapest grow light available. Any indoor system that ignores that has to prove, crop by crop, that the added control is worth the cost.

8 bumps

hyokkim · 6/4/2026, 8:12:35 AM · permalink

4 bumps

Signature