Is this a distinction without a difference, or am I missing something?
I do wonder though... How much cheaper is it really? What if the externalized costs were factored in?
Currently all manner of costs are put onto the environment rather than the producer or consumer: Soil erosion, soil degradation, fertilizer and pesticide runoff, biodiversity losses, greenhouse gas emissions, etc... All of which are huge issues, which we can't keep ignoring like we are.
And even after ignoring all that), most of 'the West' still needs to heavily subsidize farmers to make them competitive with imported crops.
"cheaper than before" usually yes.
But we are talking about different production methods, maybe hydroponics could never be cheaper than growing stuff in dirt because the production method can be optimized only so much.
An "advanced" (different) production methods is not inherently cheaper than a "traditional" method.
How do you define "technical problem" if you ignore the cost of the inputs to your system?
The sun is free, growing lamps aren't.
Hard to beat free energy.
You need atleast 35 watts per square foot of high quality grow LEDs to grow most crops outside of leafy greens. That is about 1.5 million watts per acre for 12-16 hours per day, which makes it pretty obvious why it isn't economical. And even if we could meet the theoretical efficiency limit of LED lighting technology, it would still take atleast half of that amount of electricity.
