1. They never say what they are actually growing, other than fruits and veg. 2. No comparison is made to similar efforts in the last few years. 3. No mention

1. They never say what they are actually growing, other than fruits and veg. 2. No comparison is made to similar efforts in the last few years. 3. No mention of disease and pest issues in confined spaces. Let’s run the numbers. 100M is capital costs for 150 acres/60 hectares. Just building costs. https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-you-should-know-about-vertical-farming-4144786 https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-you-should-know-about-ver... Water use to be saved. 1.5 acre ft for irrigated crops in West https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/irrigation-water-use/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-practices-management/ir... So, 250 acre-ft for 60 hectare crop annually. Acre-ft water cost: let’s say 2K per acre-ft https://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/groundwater/charts/cost-comparison/index.html https://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/groundwater/charts/cost-... Water was going for as high as 10K/acre-ft. 100M can buy 10K to 50K acre-ft. That’s the water use equivalent of 40 to 200 40 hectare farms. Say vertical farms save 50% on water. Vertical farms need to be 100 to 500 times more productive per acre to cover building costs alone with water savings. Quite a goal. Let’s consider land efficiency. Ag land costs about 3K/acre US https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-value-tenure/farmland-value/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/land-use-land-v... 40 hectare - 500K So 100M buys 200 40 hectare farms. And that doesn’t depreciate...it’s land. So 200 times more productive to pay for the conventional land equivalent. Together, you are still in the two orders of magnitude more efficient just to cover building costs for vertical. And it just goes up from there. The US has a lot of very productive ag land...