Two Articles in Scientific American
On the one hand, the November 2009 issue of Scientific American has an article advocating “vertical farms”—an idea that makes sense only if the necessary grow lights are powered by nuclear energy. On the other hand, it also has an article advocating 100% use of “renewable energy” (i.e., a combination of direct solar energy, indirect solar energy, and trivialities). I don't think those ideas can be combined.
If we try combining them, instead of letting plants gather solar energy and then eating them, we will collect solar energy out in the countryside, send it for an expensive night on the town and then beam that same energy into the plants via grow lights. An all-solar energy supply might make sense if there were no increase in power demand, but the vertical farms will increase the demand by themselves.