LittleDabbie
Supporter
- 11,813
- 438
While cannabis is still illegal under federal laws, Illinois is now one of 21 states that have created a legal framework for its medical production and distribution. There has been a lot of reporting on the new industry, but a fundamental question has been largely overlooked: How should legal cannabis be grown?
As a professional energy consultant, I was recently hired to review plans for an indoor medical marijuana facility in Connecticut. The energy use required for this facility was eye-opening. While some efficiency opportunities existed that could have benefited the project, I believe the best advice that I provided was essentially non-technical: Cannabis grows best in sunshine.
Of the 23 applications received in Connecticut, four production licenses were issued (including the project on which I consulted). None of the licensed projects included sunshine as a growing component.
The Connecticut River Valley is home to some of most productive soils in the Northeast. Why would a state with high electric rates and a rich agricultural history award licenses exclusively to energy-intensive indoor growing operations when the proposal guidelines contained no prohibitions against greenhouse growing?
Let’s remember that production went indoors as a way to hide from the law. But now that the laws are changing, the way cannabis is grown should change, too. The practice to continue growing indoors needs to be challenged.
Arguments have been made that the medical market requires year-round production to ensure that patients’ needs are met. But according to the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia, properly packaged and stored cannabis can retain its potency for years. The demand for boutique indoor cannabis is not driven by medical need. It’s a fetish of the high-end illicit market. Even if indoor cannabis is perceived as being more impressive in its appearance, this is not a valid criteria for medical effectiveness.
Why is sunshine better? When grown with sunshine electricity is not required for services that nature provides for free. Another disadvantage to growing indoors is that when an opportunistic pest does make it into a clean-room-style garden, it may do very well, cut off from natural competition and predation. And because indoor growing costs are high there will be an incentive to use fungicides, pesticides and other toxic inputs, to prevent losses when things go wrong.
Regulators do not seem to be fully informed of the environmental implications of indoor growing, and investors are likely to view utility costs only in the context of a balance sheet. Fortunately there are resources that illuminate the subject. Evan Mills, PhD, a scientist who works on issues of energy policy and efficiency, has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the energy implications of electric-powered cannabis in a paper titled The Carbon Footprint of Indoor Cannabis Production.
The peer-reviewed paper estimates that domestic indoor production uses enough electricity to power 2 million average homes. The value of this electricity and associated energy use is $6 billion per year and results in the emission of 15 million metric tons of CO2 annually, or about seven power plants. This document should be required reading for the officials who are permitting these new facilities. In light of what we continue to learn about climate change, industry must be developed in a way that is accountable to its carbon impacts. Cannabis is no exception.
From a policy point of view the answer is clear. It is not in the public interest to build power plants when the sun can do the work. Policy needs to catch up to prevent the profound waste of energy and environmental harm that indoor marijuana cultivation practices represent. If better ecological methods are not adopted, states will be assisting in the development of a new industry that will be economically unsustainable.
The all-electrical build-out of this industry is an avoidable environmental calamity, which is why it is critical that our new drug policy is coordinated with intelligent energy and environmental policy.
As Illinois regulators begin to evaluate proposals for cannabis cultivation centers they should understand the long-term negative impact of indoor growing and award licenses to applicants that incorporate sunshine through the use of greenhouses. This is not only best environmentally but will also lead to a healthier industry as well.
Scott Markle is the owner of Thermal Solutions, which seeks to mitigate the costs of human comfort by the intelligent application of best available technology. He resides in High Falls N.Y where he has maintained an organic garden and thermophilic compost pile since his teenage years.
As a professional energy consultant, I was recently hired to review plans for an indoor medical marijuana facility in Connecticut. The energy use required for this facility was eye-opening. While some efficiency opportunities existed that could have benefited the project, I believe the best advice that I provided was essentially non-technical: Cannabis grows best in sunshine.
Of the 23 applications received in Connecticut, four production licenses were issued (including the project on which I consulted). None of the licensed projects included sunshine as a growing component.
The Connecticut River Valley is home to some of most productive soils in the Northeast. Why would a state with high electric rates and a rich agricultural history award licenses exclusively to energy-intensive indoor growing operations when the proposal guidelines contained no prohibitions against greenhouse growing?
Let’s remember that production went indoors as a way to hide from the law. But now that the laws are changing, the way cannabis is grown should change, too. The practice to continue growing indoors needs to be challenged.
Arguments have been made that the medical market requires year-round production to ensure that patients’ needs are met. But according to the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia, properly packaged and stored cannabis can retain its potency for years. The demand for boutique indoor cannabis is not driven by medical need. It’s a fetish of the high-end illicit market. Even if indoor cannabis is perceived as being more impressive in its appearance, this is not a valid criteria for medical effectiveness.
Why is sunshine better? When grown with sunshine electricity is not required for services that nature provides for free. Another disadvantage to growing indoors is that when an opportunistic pest does make it into a clean-room-style garden, it may do very well, cut off from natural competition and predation. And because indoor growing costs are high there will be an incentive to use fungicides, pesticides and other toxic inputs, to prevent losses when things go wrong.
Regulators do not seem to be fully informed of the environmental implications of indoor growing, and investors are likely to view utility costs only in the context of a balance sheet. Fortunately there are resources that illuminate the subject. Evan Mills, PhD, a scientist who works on issues of energy policy and efficiency, has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the energy implications of electric-powered cannabis in a paper titled The Carbon Footprint of Indoor Cannabis Production.
The peer-reviewed paper estimates that domestic indoor production uses enough electricity to power 2 million average homes. The value of this electricity and associated energy use is $6 billion per year and results in the emission of 15 million metric tons of CO2 annually, or about seven power plants. This document should be required reading for the officials who are permitting these new facilities. In light of what we continue to learn about climate change, industry must be developed in a way that is accountable to its carbon impacts. Cannabis is no exception.
From a policy point of view the answer is clear. It is not in the public interest to build power plants when the sun can do the work. Policy needs to catch up to prevent the profound waste of energy and environmental harm that indoor marijuana cultivation practices represent. If better ecological methods are not adopted, states will be assisting in the development of a new industry that will be economically unsustainable.
The all-electrical build-out of this industry is an avoidable environmental calamity, which is why it is critical that our new drug policy is coordinated with intelligent energy and environmental policy.
As Illinois regulators begin to evaluate proposals for cannabis cultivation centers they should understand the long-term negative impact of indoor growing and award licenses to applicants that incorporate sunshine through the use of greenhouses. This is not only best environmentally but will also lead to a healthier industry as well.
Scott Markle is the owner of Thermal Solutions, which seeks to mitigate the costs of human comfort by the intelligent application of best available technology. He resides in High Falls N.Y where he has maintained an organic garden and thermophilic compost pile since his teenage years.
