Indoor Farming Is a ‘No-Brainer.’ Except for the Carbon Footprint and Price of Gas.

"It’s shaping up to be a tough year for agriculture: With record drought gripping the West, farmers in California’s Central Valley are leaving vast tracts of fertile land unplanted. A January cold snap in Florida devastated tomato crops there, leaving the survivors vulnerable to disease. Two months later, an unusually hard freeze in the Carolinas left some farmers with little to no strawberries and blueberries.

Yet neither drought nor frost is ever a concern for the growers of tomatoes, strawberries and other crops currently ripening inside enormous greenhouses, some sprawling across 175 acres, in North America and Europe. Here a revolution is quietly taking place, perhaps the most potentially disruptive since Cyrus McCormick’s reaper. Vegetables are increasingly being grown indoors, using an advanced and intensive form of growing called controlled environment agriculture, a method that has the potential to help feed the planet, even while it threatens to further warm it.

Indoor farming has the potential to shake the very nature of agriculture down to its roots. But this innovation comes with higher upfront costs and a larger carbon footprint.

Tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, lettuce and berries are increasingly as likely to come from Canadian or American greenhouses as from fields in Florida or Mexico. Last year, more than a third of the fresh tomatoes sold in the United States, including every slice that topped a Wendy’s burger, were grown indoors.

The advantages of controlled agriculture, a technology pioneered in the Netherlands, are many. Crops are not subject to the vagaries of extreme weather, such as frost, heat or hail; will never be recalled because of E. coli contamination from the dairy farm upstream; and tomatoes and other vegetables can be bred for flavor, instead of for tolerance to heat, rain and long-distance transportation.

Furthermore, these greenhouses can produce more food with fewer pesticides and less water. Computer-controlled root and air temperatures, nutrients and carbon dioxide levels, plants are grown in nutrient-laden water rather than soil and provide yields up to 400 times greater per acre than field agriculture, with one-tenth the water used. Controlled agriculture also allows vegetable farms to operate where there is no arable land, whether in Kentucky coal country or an Egyptian desert.

A vast majority of the more than 2,300 controlled environment greenhouses in the United States — 100-acre structures or smaller “vertical farms” that grow crops on trays stacked to the ceiling — replace the warmth and light from the sun with fossil-fuel power, giving a new meaning to the term “greenhouse gas.” While there are efforts to make controlled agriculture more energy efficient — such as locating greenhouses adjacent to power or water treatment plants (or even server farms) to capture the waste heat those facilities generate — even greenhouses that boast renewable electricity sources for lighting generally use natural gas for heating because it’s far more cost-effective.

The carbon footprint of any given greenhouse tomato, the leading indoor crop, can vary quite a bit depending on energy sources, ambient temperatures and available natural light.

But various studies conducted in the United States, Europe and Canada have estimated that, on average, the production of a pound of tomatoes in an American or Northern European greenhouse using fossil fuel energy releases 3 to 3.5 pounds of carbon into the atmosphere.

That is, these studies suggest, about six times the carbon footprint of a field tomato, even taking into account the diesel emissions from refrigerated trucks that often transport field vegetables hundreds or even thousands of miles to reach consumers. Greenhouses, by contrast, can be located near major population centers, as is the case with large vertical farms often constructed in repurposed factories and warehouses.

Feeding the planet already accounts for roughly one-quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. Animal protein, in particular beef and dairy cattle production, has a more consequential carbon footprint than vegetable farming. Nevertheless, in a rapidly warming world, should we be increasing agriculture’s contribution by moving some of it indoors?

We have little choice, say proponents. With the global population expected to grow by 25 percent to nearly 10 billion people by 2050, food production will need to increase by 60 percent to 100 percent. With fresh water supplies and arable land dwindling, and droughts exacerbated by climate change threatening to turn California’s fertile heartland into barren desert, where will this additional food come from?

For the first time in the 10,000-year history of agriculture, societies don’t need to be blessed with fertile soil and favorable weather to farm. Already, greenhouses have helped turn tiny, soggy Holland, a country with a land mass just two-thirds the size of West Virginia, into the world’s second-largest agricultural exporter by value, sending $10.7 billion in tomatoes, cucumbers and bell peppers annually to its neighbors, including Germany, Belgium and Britain. Arid Egypt has dedicated thousands of acres to new greenhouses to grow a variety of vegetables.

Just how rapidly this growth is happening in the United States is hard to quantify, because the U.S. Department of Agriculture does not track controlled environment production. But controlled environment agriculture investments in 2021 were up 77 percent over the previous year, and they have more than tripled since 2019.

Jonathan Webb, the 37-year-old chief executive of AppHarvest, a start-up that recently built a 60-acre controlled environment greenhouse in the heart of Appalachian Kentucky, told Yahoo Finance last month that “20, 30 years from now, you’re going to be growing most fruits and vegetables at scale globally in a controlled environment.” AppHarvest raised $475 million from venture capitalists and other investors before going public last year with an initial valuation of $1 billion. This, mind you, is a company that sells tomatoes.

Neil Mattson, who leads Cornell University’s controlled environment agriculture research group, believes that, at least when it comes to the most perishable vegetables, such as tomatoes and greens, greenhouses are the future, even with their climate problem.

“It’s a balance,” he told me recently. “You put these things on a scale and you say, OK, which side is weightier than the other side?” The benefits include “a higher quality product, more consistent supply, somewhat better control over food safety, and insect and disease control using beneficial insects and microbes instead of conventional pesticides.”

The list on the negative side is far shorter: “Mainly energy,” meaning its cost in both dollars and carbon dioxide emissions.

Some of the largest greenhouses in the Netherlands have had to turn off the lights because of spiraling energy prices exacerbated by the sanctioning of Russia. Some 8.2 percent of annual Dutch natural gas consumption goes to heat greenhouses.

The energy price spike may be temporary, but the greenhouse gas emissions are not. “The carbon footprint,” Dr. Mattson said, “is the main hurdle we have to clear. Then greenhouses are a no-brainer.”

McCormick’s 19th-century reaper, in making the harvesting of vastly greater acreage feasible, transformed wheat farming and helped turn the Midwest into America’s breadbasket. Will controlled agriculture have a similar impact? The money pouring into it suggests that many think it will. If they’re right, then growing tomatoes in soil warmed by the sun and watered by the rain may one day seem as old-fashioned as harvesting wheat with a scythe."

Raimundas Lopata. Kuo ginsime kiekvieną Lietuvos centimetrą?

Kaip tai kuo? Straipsnio pavadinime juk nurodyta - lopetomis ir auksiniais šaukštais. Vagys, jūs vagys... Dar dangstotės be reikalo kankinamais šauktiniais.
 

Priklausomybė nuo puslaidininkių kenkia Amerikos saugumui

  „Morrisas Changas, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. įkūrėjas, balandį davė retą interviu. Jis mano, kad dabartinės JAV Kongreso pastangos suteikti 50 mlrd. dolerių subsidijų Amerikos puslaidininkių įmonėms, tikintis, kad jos taps pramonės lyderėmis, yra „labai brangus pinigų švaistymas be naudos". Nors jis gali būti teisus, kad JAV įmonės vargu ar aplenks TSMC, tai ne esmė: visiška priklausomybė nuo Taivano dėl pažangių puslaidininkių kelia pavojų Amerikos nacionaliniam saugumui.

 

    TSMC gamina 92% pažangių puslaidininkių, reikalingų kiekvienam išmaniajam telefonui, nešiojamam kompiuteriui ir balistinei raketai.

 

    Tokios JAV įmonės, kaip „Nvidia“, „Qualcomm“ ir „Apple“ beveik visą savo gamybą perduoda Taivanui.

 

    Jei Taivano lustų gamybos pajėgumai nutrūktų arba patektų į Kinijos rankas, Amerikos technologijų sektorius būtų nuniokotas. Kaip perspėjo buvęs gynybos sekretoriaus pavaduotojas Robertas Workas, konfliktas Taivano sąsiauryje gali sukelti nacionalinio saugumo krizę dėl lustų: „Esame 110 mylių“ – atstumas nuo Taipėjaus iki žemyno – „nutolę nuo dviejų kartų į priekį, iki dviem kartomis atsilikusių pozicijos“.

 

    Vašingtonas pripažįsta, kad reikia atgrasyti Pekiną nuo lustų, kurie maitina amerikietišką elektroniką.

 

    Nepaisant to, politikos formuotojai stengiasi strukdyti Kinijai užvaldyti puslaidininkių rinkos su ta pačia taktika, kuria Kinija dominavo telekomunikacijų infrastruktūros, saulės baterijų ir elektromobilių rinkose.

 

    Nors Bideno administracija pasiūlė 50 milijardų dolerių investicijų į puslaidininkių gamybą pagal JAV inovacijų ir konkurencijos įstatymą, Kongresas toliau svarsto teisės aktą, bet jo nepriima. Jei Kongresas priimtų įstatymo projektą, JAV investicijos vis tiek sudarytų tik trečdalį to, ką išleis Kinijos vyriausybė.

 

    1990–2020 m. Kinija pastatė 32 puslaidininkių megafabrikus, palyginti su 24 megafabrikais likusioje pasaulio dalyje. Nė vienas nebuvo pastatytas JAV.

 

    P. Chango teigimu, JAV įmonės nebegali sukurti pažangiausių lustų, nes puslaidininkių gamyklos eksploatavimas Rytų Azijoje kainuoja perpus pigiau, nei šalies viduje.

 

    Net ir su idealia politika mažai tikėtina, kad JAV įmonės galėtų aplenkti TSMC lyderystę pažangių lustų srityje.

 

    Tuo tarpu Kinija padarė įspūdingų laimėjimų savo puslaidininkių sektoriuje. Kinija jau 2025 m. aplenks Taivaną ir taps didžiausia pasaulyje lustų gamintoja. Jau dabar ji spausdina daugiau, nei pusę pasaulio grandinių plokščių, reikalingų lustams įtaisyti. Kinija kontroliuoja svarbiausias žaliavas, kurios tiekimo grandinėje sukuria droselio taškus: ji gamina 70 % pasaulio silicio, 80 % volframo ir 97 % galio, kurių kiekvienas yra būtinas puslaidininkių gamyboje.

 

    Jei Pekinas sukurs ilgalaikius pranašumus visoje puslaidininkių tiekimo grandinėje, tai sukeltų proveržį pagrindinėse technologijose, kuriam JAV negali prilygti. Pavyzdžiui, specialiai pritaikyti giluminiam mokymuisi skirti lustai pakeistų visuomenę ir sukurtų tokias technologijas, kaip autonominės transporto priemonės ir pažangiausios vakcinos.

 

    JAV negali išeiti iš šios keblios padėties. Be prezidento Bideno pasiūlytų 50 milijardų dolerių investicijų į puslaidininkių gamybą, JAV, kad laimėti lustų konkursą, reikalingos trys strategijos.

 

    Pirma, JAV turėtų padvigubinti savo jėgą mažiau pažangių puslaidininkių gamyboje. Tokie puslaidininkiai yra būtini išmaniesiems telefonams ir nešiojamiesiems kompiuteriams, tačiau jie sudaro tik 2 % pasaulinės puslaidininkių rinkos.

 

    Tokios JAV kompanijos, kaip „Intel“ ir „GlobalFoundries“ puikiai gamina lėtesnius lustus, kurie naudojami visur – nuo ​​televizorių iki tankų.

 

    Administracija gali paremti šias įmones suteikdama greitesnius leidimus gamykloms ir suteikdama mokesčių kreditus investicijoms į mokslinius tyrimus, plėtrą ir gamybą.

 

    Antra, JAV turėtų panaudoti savo politinius svertus su Taivano ir Pietų Korėjos vyriausybėmis, kad įtikintų TSMC ir „Samsung“ užmegzti partnerystę su JAV lustų dizaineriais ir Amerikoje gaminti pažangius puslaidininkius. Tiek Pietų Korėja, tiek Taivanas priklauso nuo JAV kariuomenės saugumo įsipareigojimų. Bendros įmonės su JAV įmonėmis, tokiomis, kaip „Qualcomm“ ir „Nvidia“, užtikrintų, kad JAV gynybos institucija galėtų vykdyti savo įsipareigojimus šioms valstybėms. Jų vyriausybių tumiančios pastangos kartu su JAV mokesčių paskatų ir subsidijų traukimu gali įtikinti TSMC ir Samsung, kad daugiau lustų JAV kūrimas yra jų interesas.

 

    Trečia, JAV turėtų sugriežtinti ryšius tarp MTEP ir gamybos. Dauguma technologinių naujovių atsiranda dėl šių dviejų sąveikos. JAV inovacijų ir konkurencijos įstatymas žengia žingsnius čia, kurdamas paskatas investuoti tiek į MTTP, tiek į gamybą.

 

    Amerika yra ties pralaimėjimo konkurencijoje riba. Nebent JAV vyriausybė sutelks nacionalines pastangas į strategiją, panašią į tą, kuri sukūrė technologijas, laimėjusias Antrąjį pasaulinį karą, Kinija netrukus gali dominuoti puslaidininkių ir pasienio technologijų, kuriose juos naudos, srityje.

     ---

     Ponas Allisonas, Harvardo vyriausybės profesorius, yra knygos „Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?“ autorius. P. Schmidtas buvo „Google“ generalinis direktorius 2001–2011 m., „Google“ ir jos įpėdinės „Alphabet Inc.“ vykdomasis pirmininkas, 2011–2017 m., ir yra knygos „The Age of AI: And Our Human Future“ bendraautorius." [1]

1. Semiconductor Dependency Imperils American Security
Graham, Allison; Schmidt, Eric. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 21 June 2022: A.17

Semiconductor Dependency Imperils American Security

"Morris Chang, founder of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., gave a rare interview in April. He believes Congress's current effort to provide $50 billion in subsidies to American semiconductor companies, in the hope that they will become industry leaders, is "a very expensive exercise in futility." While he may be correct that U.S. firms are unlikely to overtake TSMC, that isn't the point: Complete dependence on Taiwan for advanced semiconductors puts American national security at risk.

TSMC manufactures 92% of the advanced semiconductors necessary for every smartphone, laptop and ballistic missile.

U.S. firms such as Nvidia, Qualcomm and Apple outsource almost all their manufacturing to Taiwan.

If Taiwan's chip manufacturing capacity went offline or fell into China's hands, America's technology sector would be devastated. As former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work has warned, conflict in the Taiwan Strait could spark a national-security crisis over chips: "We're 110 miles" -- the distance from Taipei to the mainland -- "away from going from two generations ahead to maybe two generations behind."

Washington recognizes the need to deter Beijing from seizing the chips that power American electronics.

Nevertheless, policy makers are struggling to prevent China from capturing the semiconductor market with the same tactics it used to dominate the markets for telecommunications infrastructure, solar panels and electric vehicles.

While the Biden administration has proposed a $50 billion investment in semiconductor manufacturing through the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, Congress continues to discuss the legislation but not pass it. If Congress enacts the bill, U.S. investment would still be only a third of what the Chinese government will spend.

From 1990 to 2020, China built 32 semiconductor megafactories, compared with 24 megafactories in the rest of the world. None were built in the U.S.

According to Mr. Chang, U.S. firms are no longer able to build cutting-edge chips because it costs half as much to operate a semiconductor plant in East Asia as it does domestically.

Even with ideal policies, it is unlikely that U.S. companies can overtake TSMC's leadership in advanced chips.

Meanwhile, China has made impressive gains in its semiconductor sector. China is on track to overtake Taiwan as the world's largest manufacturer of chips as soon as 2025. It already prints more than half the world's circuit boards, which are necessary to install chips in devices. China controls critical raw materials that create choke points in the supply chain: It produces 70% of the world's silicon, 80% of tungsten and 97% of gallium, each of which is essential in semiconductor fabrication.

If Beijing develops durable advantages across the semiconductor supply chain, it would generate breakthroughs in foundational technologies that the U.S. cannot match. Tailor-made chips for deep learning, for instance, would transform society and make possible technologies such as autonomous vehicles and state-of-the-art vaccines.

The U.S. can't spend its way out of this predicament. In addition to President Biden's proposed $50 billion investment in semiconductor manufacturing, three policies are necessary for the U.S. to win the chip competition.

First, the U.S. should double down on its strength in the manufacturing of less-advanced semiconductors. Advanced semiconductors are essential for smartphones and laptops, but represent only 2% of the global semiconductor market.

U.S. companies such as Intel and GlobalFoundries excel at producing slower chips that are used in everything from televisions to tanks.

The administration can support these firms by fast-tracking permits for factories and providing tax credits for investments in research, development and manufacturing.

Second, the U.S. should use its political leverage with the governments of Taiwan and South Korea to persuade TSMC and Samsung to form partnerships with U.S. chip designers and manufacture advanced semiconductors in America. Both South Korea and Taiwan depend on security commitments from the U.S. military. Joint ventures with U.S. firms such as Qualcomm and Nvidia would ensure the U.S. defense establishment is capable of fulfilling its commitments to those nations. A push from their governments, along with a pull from U.S. tax incentives and subsidies, could persuade TSMC and Samsung that building more chips in the U.S. is in their interests.

Third, the U.S. should tighten the links between R&D and manufacturing. Most technological innovations come from the interaction between the two. The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act makes strides here by creating incentives for investment in both R&D and manufacturing.

America is on the verge of losing the chip competition. Unless the U.S. government mobilizes a national effort similar to the one that created the technologies that won World War II, China could soon dominate semiconductors and the frontier technologies they will power.

---

Mr. Allison, a professor of government at Harvard, is author of "Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?" Mr. Schmidt was CEO of Google, 2001-11, and executive chairman of Google and its successor, Alphabet Inc., 2011-17, and is a co-author of "The Age of AI: And Our Human Future."" [1]

1. Semiconductor Dependency Imperils American Security
Graham, Allison; Schmidt, Eric. 
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 21 June 2022: A.17