Dave Borlace doesn't just describe vertical farming; he reframes it from a niche urban curiosity into a potential bulwark against a looming global food crisis driven by population density and soil degradation. The piece stands out by moving past the usual skepticism about energy costs to highlight a specific, game-changing breakthrough: the theoretical feasibility of growing staple cereal crops like wheat indoors, a feat previously dismissed as impossible.
The Urban Imperative
Borlace opens by grounding the discussion in stark demographic reality. He notes that by mid-century, the global population will exceed 9 billion, with 70% residing in cities. He illustrates this density with a striking comparison: "By midentury, there'll be more people living in the city of Mumbai than in the whole of Canada." This framing is effective because it immediately establishes the logistical impossibility of traditional agriculture feeding these megacities without destroying the planet's remaining soil. The author argues that the current model, where food travels an average of 1,500 miles in the United States alone, is unsustainable. Vertical farming, he posits, offers a solution by "stop[ping] tearing down forests to grow crops outwards across an everexpanding area of land and start growing upwards instead."
The core of the argument rests on the efficiency of hydroponics and aeroponics. Borlace explains that these systems, which grow plants in nutrient-rich liquids or mists rather than soil, can reduce water usage by 90% and slash land requirements dramatically. He cites Plenty, a San Francisco startup, which claims to harvest the same yield from 2 acres as a traditional farm would from 720. This is a compelling metric, yet it requires scrutiny. Critics might note that while land and water savings are real, the energy intensity of these facilities remains a massive hurdle. Borlace acknowledges this, quoting environmental scientist Dr. Jonathan Foley, who warned that powering these systems globally could exceed the energy consumption of the current food industry if not managed correctly.
"If all the energy for these facilities was being provided by fossil fuels, then it would undoubtedly have a major detrimental impact on our climate."
The Energy Equation and Technological Shifts
The commentary shifts to address the elephant in the room: electricity. Borlace does not shy away from the criticism that vertical farms are energy-intensive pipe dreams. However, he argues that the context has changed rapidly. He points out that "LED lighting efficiency has improved remarkably even in the last couple of years while the costs of renewable technologies like solar and wind continue to tumble like they've just fallen off a cliff." This is a crucial pivot in the narrative. The argument is no longer about whether vertical farming is energy-efficient in a vacuum, but whether it is viable in a grid increasingly powered by renewables.
He provides concrete examples to bolster this claim, such as the Nordic Harvest facility in Copenhagen, which is fully automated and powered entirely by Denmark's wind farms. Similarly, Plenty has secured $400 million in capital from investors like Jeff Bezos and Eric Schmidt, leveraging artificial intelligence to optimize growth. The author suggests that the financial risk is shifting from a technical impossibility to a venture capital opportunity. "That's what entrepreneurs do every day, isn't it?" Borlace asks, implying that the market will solve the cost barriers if the technology proves viable.
Beyond Greens: The Cereal Breakthrough
The most distinctive part of Borlace's coverage is his focus on the limitations of current vertical farming, which is mostly limited to leafy greens, and the potential for expansion into calorie-dense staples. He identifies a critical gap: cereal crops like wheat, maize, and rice provide over half of human calories but are currently grown on land at severe risk from climate change. He highlights a 2020 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that challenges the status quo.
The study suggests that wheat can indeed be grown vertically with yields that dwarf traditional methods. Borlace writes, "In that environment, they found that the setup could yield as much as 1940 metric tons of wheat per hectare of land per year. That's a massive increase on traditional wheat farming, which manages just 3.2 tons per hectare." This statistic is the piece's strongest evidence. If verifiable in a commercial setting, it transforms vertical farming from a supplement for salads into a primary solution for global caloric security. However, the author is careful to temper expectations, noting that someone must still "stump up some serious cash" to turn this simulation into reality. A counterargument worth considering is that the energy required to grow wheat vertically, even with high yields, might still be prohibitive compared to the sheer scale of global wheat demand, regardless of efficiency gains.
"If that turns out to be verifiable in a commercial setting, then it really would be a gamechanger."
Bottom Line
Borlace's strongest move is connecting the dots between rapid renewable energy adoption and the specific breakthrough in cereal crop simulation, moving the conversation from "can we do it?" to "when will we scale it?" The argument's biggest vulnerability remains the sheer capital intensity required to build the infrastructure at a scale necessary to feed billions, a risk that no amount of theoretical yield data can fully mitigate. Readers should watch for the next phase of commercial trials in wheat and rice, as these will determine if vertical farming can truly evolve from a niche urban feature to a global food security pillar.