[imtringued]

>Except none of that matters, Solar Irradiance has very little to do with actual photosynthesis. You are measuring Watt's as a pure energy source, that's useless in this case

>That's a major reason why the solar irradiance measure of pure Wattage is irrelevant

You are quite literally missing the tree for the forest. Parent assumes that photosynthesis is 1% efficient with sunlight so he added the 100 factor to estimate how much energy plants would need if photosynthesis was 100% efficient and you could skip photosynthesis just feed plants energy straight from the power grid and on top of that he is assuming you can turn 100% of solar radiance into electricity.

If we assume 20% efficient solar panels your growing lights need to be 500 times more effective or power efficient than sunlight.

You should have based your argument on arguing that the vast majority of acres that the parent used are e.g. suitable for solar panels but not for farming plants and hence the number of acres is unfairly bloated. But all I see is excuses in trying to tell people how your growing lights are going to be 500 times more efficient when we know that isn't going to happen.