> All this criticism also applies to vertical farms where lettuce and tomatoes are grown. In this case, there is a significant reduction in water use. These com

> All this criticism also applies to vertical farms where lettuce and tomatoes are grown. In this case, there is a significant reduction in water use. These companies are profitable, but only because the process relies on a supply of cheap fossil fuels. If solar panels supplied the energy, the extra costs and space for the energy supply would again cancel out the savings in terms of space and costs. The only advantage of a vertical farm would then be the shorter transport distances. Still, we could just as well make transport between town and countryside more sustainable. This may be true, but I'm having trouble reconciling it with the notion I've read elsewhere that solar farms are producing some of the cheapest energy prices per KW/h. (Though maybe once you factor in energy storage it comes out more expensive than natural gas or coal?) Anyways, if these companies are currently profitable at current energy prices, that seems to imply that being profitable on 100% renewable energy isn't that much of a stretch. (Though the criticism that lettuce and tomatoes aren't a good source of calories/fat/protein and aren't enough to feed a population, if that was your goal, remains valid.)