I've been long fascinated by hydroponics. I've watched similar companies launch for the past twenty years. The economics simply aren't there. When similar projects shared their numbers the yields they project are unrealistic. Or their production quickly exceeds the small market willing to pay a considerable premium for a better product.

The numbers work, sometimes with flowers yet these guys always try growing lettuce or tomatoes.

I wonder, does the higher price take subsidies into account? Any is it possible to grow any kind of produce? Ie. carrots and potatoes as well?

I see that it produces a fair amount of CO2 from the lighting. It would be great to see how this compares to the amount of CO2 used to ship a similar product from the fields.

(Plus, presumably, higher harvesting energy costs.)

Don't you hate it when they use non standard measures:

"a single head of lettuce grown under artificial light produces enough carbon dioxide at the average power plant to fill three 55-gallon drums"

I'm pretty sure the acceptable unit for volume is the telephone booth and the olympic swimming pool.

Plants need CO2 to grow. Most of the time CO2 is added. So I don't think CO2 production from lighting is an issue.

I'd like to see some comparison. If 10x as much is produced as is used, that's possibly an issue!

The issue is how much is ending up in the atmosphere.