If labor costs, for any comparably-sized farm, dwarf artificial light [1] costs, then it would be a form of "penny wise, pound foolish" to opt for free light if it means incurring the labor cost. This is true, even if each is the biggest single cost in each scenario.
[1] Even that needn't be 100% artificial, since windows and skylights exist, though, again, my ignorance as an outsider may preclude me from realizing something that might be obvious to an insider, like this option not moving the needle on cost.
On one hand, there is a regular farm with farm labour and natural sun light. A traditional calendar picture farm. A tractor, some workers, rows of crops, red barn etc.
On the other hand, there is an automated indoor farm with artificial lights.
Are these the two scenarios that are being compared?
I agree that indoor farming will likely seem more profitable even though lighting costs money.
But it doesn’t happen that way because of
1. economies of scale.
https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/52/c9/5... : UC Davis cost studies for lettuce.
https://www.freightfarms.com/income-projection#proformabody-... : freight farms income projection. Look at comment sections to gauge reception
https://www.agrilyst.com/stateofindoorfarming2017/ : agrilyst compilation of indoor economics. No one is named.
https://www.scribd.com/document/318543132/10A-Dr-T-Kozai-Pla... : Japanese Prof.Kozai sharing their insights. Very helpful.
2. While indoor farming is being tinkered around with..someone still has to keep supplying lettuce to the Walmarts and Whole Foods and Safeway’s and Kroger’s and restaurants and consumers.
3. Right now, the advantage of outdoor lettuce farming is legacy. California lettuce companies have been doing it for so long that they have perfected it to an art form.
But regulations are strangling and water is disappearing. Soon labour too. And it’s getging expensive.
They do the best they can. They give medical, 15-27/hour including benefits, breaks, overtime and some even provide housing. But it’s not going to be sustainable because the public still wants cheap food.
Even if indoor systems are automated, the jury is still out there if it would be profitable. Also..indoor plant specialists would want 60-120k. The Joses and Eduardos and Marias employed in the field demand much less.
Make of this what you may...I am just throwing light on current ground reality. I have NO solutions or recommendations. These are bigger problems.
I do know that food security is important. Local food supply is crucial for this. Food should be reasonably priced for everyone. Farming should be financially viable and sustainable for young farmers to keep doing what they do best.
My solution is small farm robotics. Outdoors. Because I am not an indoor farmer. I only read about it. Perhaps there are other ways to deal with it but I am not equipped to comment more. I understand large scale production but I haven’t worked in it. Everyone is an employee in a corporate farm. I am a farm owner and a farm worker in my farm. So it’s worlds apart.
I wouldn't know, other than assuming that the subject of the article is the model for the indoor farm.
> I agree that indoor farming will likely seem more profitable even though lighting costs money.
That does answer my question, and it essentially answers (at least part of) why VCs would find it interesting.
> 1. economies of scale.
IIUC, the subject of the article is attempting to tackle a niche (of their own creation?) of urban farming, which is, presumably, at smaller scale.
> But outside, we got sunshine. And it’s free. Nothing is cheaper than free!
Would simulated and/or pumped-in sunshine cost more than (or even a significan fraction of) the labor?
If not, that seems similar to the sunk-cost fallacy, substituting "free" for "already paid for".