Locally grown food is an unsustainable luxury that doesn't work for large portions of the US because there is not year round farm worthy land close enough by to sustain the population.
You could do what people always did, and grow crops that keep through the winter. You're not going to be eating fresh kale and tomatoes in January, you'll be eating your turnips and beets and potatoes and apples out of cold-storage, and making bread with your oats and corn and wheat that you harvested in the fall.
What's the difference in energy cost from farming indoors in an area that can't support it normally and growing things in season in areas that can and transporting it? Got any studies to link? I'm curious. Heat is incredibly energy costly so I'd be interested in seeing a calculation.
The crop yields from climate controlled agriculture can be inferred a bit from the results that are coming in from Japan. This is not economical in rural regions like much of the US only (IMO) because locals make so little capital. But if we treat it a lot like subsistence farming and communities pool together capital to start indoor farms, this could help.
My skepticism is mostly around not the economics but the sheer accumulation of desperation in these small communities creating high corruption and theft rates ruining the efficacy of the concept.
I don't have any links to studies - I'm relying on the idea that renewable sources can contribute significantly to the overall energy requirements.
When you take into account the amount of energy required to grow food, refrigerate it, ship it halfway around the world, and distribute it to stores, surely the amount of energy required to grow food locally is inconsequential.
I'm just thinking about all of that aluminum/steel and glass you have to get to build the green houses, which you then have to heat, and wonder with the payoff term is for it.
You're still going to have to refrigerate and ship the stuff locally; Train and ship shipping are relatively cheap compared to the last mile shipping.