Ironduke

Dale, while American agricultural output is huge (we produce something like 130% of our needs), I wouldn't call it efficient. According to what I've read in Rifkin's The Hydrogen Economy, modern agriculture requires about ten times the energy inputs than is yielded in outputs (calories). And this is just the growing of food. According to the same source, including transportation, processing, packaging, this number grows to 40 to 1, and 17% of energy used in the US is used in agriculture and the food industry.

If vertical farming proved viable and profitable, food could be grown where it was needed. For example, citrus fruits right here in Minneapolis. While the infrastructure would be quite an investment, I believe the crops grown could be competitive, as there are virtually no transportation costs, much less waste, no expenditure on fertilizers or pesticides, and no exposure to drought, freezing, or other environmental factors that negatively affect agriculture, as well as the ability to produce year-round. According to the site, agricultural yields in such as system could be 4-6 times higher than traditional agriculture.

Imagine one of these round buildings, an acre per story, 30 stories high. Accordingly, that would replace 120-180 acres of traditional farmland if those numbers are accurate.

Of course, such enterprise would need to be profitable, but I see no harm in setting aside some funding to test its viability. If profitable... well, the market would decide which is more competitive and cost-effective, and it would either be on or another. Why build skyscrapers when we can build one-story buildings so efficiently?

One of the problems facing the world is the loss of forest land of all types to agriculture, including slash-and-burn. Everywhere, agricultural desertification exists.

And if there's one thing we would achieve in the US, it's energy independence in agriculture.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here