HackerTube.dev

Why Vertical Farming Won't Save the Planet

Utah State University Extension · 243.6K views · 2015-09-18 · 46:48

Open on YouTube ↗

If playback is restricted in your region, try opening the original video. Use Mark watched to add it to your marked videos.

Overview

Utah State plant scientist Bruce Bugbee presents his analysis of the energy and environmental costs of vertical and indoor farming. He argues artificial lighting cannot compete with sunlight in fields or greenhouses.

On Hacker News

HN uses it as the go-to rebuttal to vertical farming hype, since it gives hard numbers from a leading controlled-environment authority.

Recommended by 4 HN people across 5 months · HN mentions 2017–2025

Topics

Environment, agriculture & food systemsRenewables, batteries & storage
Search by tags
vertical farmingindoor agricultureenergy costscontrolled environmentbruce bugbee

What people said

busterarm · 2023-12 · Strong recommendation

[VIDEO] Been sending this video to every charlatan pushing vertical farming for years now. The math is pretty obvious and insurmountable on this one.

Read the original HN comment ↗
Shawnecy · 2025-03 · Recommendation

Unsurprising. I'm not sure much has changed since this recording of Bruce Bugbee's talk "Why Vertical Farming Won't Save the Planet". There's nothing surprising there but he does give hard numbers to do the math that shows that vertical farming is not as good as its proponents have made it out to be. Solar energy input dwarfs all other energy inputs to agriculture, and the cost to replace one acre of solar energy with electricity comes out to $400,000 per acre (per some unit of days per a growing season). I don't think the economics have tended favorably since. The space needs for solar panels doesn't favor vertical farming either. He also shows the efficiency of modern agriculture, and why vertical farming has a pretty tall order ahead of it to beat the economics of outdoor farming. It's quite unlikely factors have changed enough since to alter his conclusion: only high-value, high-water-content specialty crops might be economically viable. [0] = [VIDEO]

Read the original HN comment ↗
contingencies · 2018-10 · Recommendation

This article is all over the place and then apparently quotes an academic out of context. The real problem with indoor farming is not setup cost. For the fundamentals: [VIDEO] ... Bruce Bugbee, Utah State University Department of Plants, Soils and Climate, has studied plant growth in controlled environments for most of his career presents the results of his analysis of the environmental effects of Vertical Farming/Indoor Agriculture (September 2015). With regards to the machinery shown at the top of the article, it is standard industrial automation equipment you can purchase off the shelf, apparently not even hardened or substantially adjusted for outdoor use.

Read the original HN comment ↗

Sources

Video by Utah State University Extension, played through YouTube.

Data and selection notes

HN summaries and labels may contain AI errors. HN dates refer to discussions, not video publication.

HN Library: HackerTube export (2026-10-31) and open-index/hacker-news. Upstream summaries and classifications may contain AI errors.

Views, duration and playback status refresh separately from the published catalog. When an update fails, existing data remains visible.

Selection checks
  • SaaS & AI candidates: Topic keywords do not match
  • Editor-approved picks: Editorial review is required

Rule matches identify candidates. They do not guarantee video quality or financial results.

About the library and its sources