> combined efficiency of ~17%. Growing potatoes -- a calorie dense but not particularly protein rich crop -- converts only about 1.7% Efficiency of light is n

> combined efficiency of ~17%. Growing potatoes -- a calorie dense but not particularly protein rich crop -- converts only about 1.7% Efficiency of light is not that important, because plants reach their maximum rate of photosynthesis at fairly low light levels. In reality yield is limited by low temperatures in winter, avaliability of water, etc. The process being proposed here requires much more investment of capital and resources than simply planting potato in the fields -> now we need solar panels, electrolysis, etc. But if you want to improve yield by throwing money at the problem, you build a greenhouse, invest in hydroponics, etc. and your yield will grow several times. So that would be a better point of comparison -> for a dollar or physical resources invested, does this approach give you more extra yield than a state of the art greenhouse would?