In the quest for sustainable food production, indoor agriculture has been championed as a revolutionary approach. However, a recent study published in the journal *npj Sustainable Agriculture* (which translates to “Nature Partner Journal Sustainable Agriculture”) challenges this narrative, revealing that controlled environment agriculture (CEA), including mechanized greenhouses and windowless plant factories, consumes significantly more energy than traditional open-field cultivation. The research, led by Evan Mills, Principal at Energy Associates in Mendocino, California, suggests that the energy demands of CEA could have profound implications for the global energy sector and food commodity markets.
The study, a meta-analysis of 116 research papers spanning 40 countries and Antarctica, examined 23 different crop types. It found that energy consumption per harvest weight varies by five orders of magnitude, depending on factors such as facility type, crop type, and geography. “The energy intensity of CEA is staggering,” Mills noted. “It’s not just about the energy used for lighting; it’s the entire system—climate control, dehumidification, CO2 enrichment, and more.”
One of the most striking findings is that CEA currently provides less than 1% of the US food crops while consuming more energy than all open-field cultivation. If the practice were to expand to meet a larger share of food demand, it could potentially consume around 7% of the national energy use. This expansion would also require three times more land area if transitioning to solar energy, negating one of the primary benefits of CEA—reduced land use.
The high energy demands of CEA translate to significantly higher capital and operating costs compared to open-field cultivation. This cost disparity poses substantial business risks and could lead to higher commodity prices. “The economic viability of CEA for certain crops is questionable,” Mills explained. “Grains, root crops, and other staple foods are particularly challenging due to their high energy intensities.”
The study calls for increased scrutiny by planners and policymakers, emphasizing the need for improved assessment rigor and more objective comparisons between open-field and CEA practices. The findings suggest that sustainable outcomes in agriculture will require a balanced approach, considering both the benefits and drawbacks of different cultivation methods.
For the energy sector, the implications are significant. As CEA expands, the demand for energy could rise dramatically, potentially straining existing infrastructure and resources. Energy providers may need to innovate and adapt to meet the unique demands of indoor agriculture, exploring more efficient technologies and renewable energy sources.
The research also highlights the need for better data and more comprehensive studies to fully understand the energy impacts of CEA. As Mills put it, “We need a more nuanced understanding of the trade-offs involved in different agricultural practices. Only then can we make informed decisions that balance sustainability, economic viability, and food security.”
In the broader context, this study serves as a wake-up call for the agritech industry and policymakers. While CEA offers certain advantages, such as year-round production and reduced water usage, its high energy consumption cannot be ignored. The path to sustainable agriculture will require a careful consideration of all factors, ensuring that the benefits outweigh the costs.
As the world grapples with the challenges of climate change and food security, the insights from this study will be crucial in shaping future developments in the field. The energy sector, in particular, will play a pivotal role in supporting the transition to more sustainable agricultural practices, ensuring that the benefits of CEA can be realized without compromising energy sustainability.