Maybe a nice highschool assumption, but incorrect. So is the assumption that increased CO2 levels lead to better growth of plants.
Turns out that both continious sunlight and increased concentrations of CO2 cause injury to plants.
Photoperiodism is the effect of the relative length of the daily light/dark
period mainly on flowering. Some plants flower only when the daily light period
is above a certain length (long day plants), some when the daily light period is
below a certain length (short day plants), and some flower regardless of the
length of the daily light period (day neutral plants). (David Hershey, Faculty, Botany, NA ).
Therefore a change to the natural diurnal cycle of an area of the earth may result in changes to the indigenous plant population, certain species dying out due to them not receiving their normal 'cues' to flower. This in turn may lead to similar changes to the animal and insect population of that area, we've seen plenty of examples of how Mankind has changed ecosystems, not always for the better, extinctions, explosive population growths, and more subtle effects may follow even the most seemingly trivial changes to the environment.
As far as CO2 enrichment is concerned, mostly it benefits the plant population, I didn't find any studies which showed that a rise in CO2 would be detrimental to plant growth.
Since the use of such a system would likely be in more northern latitudes, the effects on plant growth would be likely to be greater, as there is a larger variation in day length than in equatorial regions.
Anyway I voted No (I wish to sleep in the dark) option, since there was no ( I wish to avert a potential ecological catastrophe )...