2 ms·
A solar cell collects energy over a range of frequencies, while a plant (if I recall) uses only two. You can think of it this way. Wheat is say 1% efficient a
by 1053r 16y ago
A solar cell collects energy over a range of frequencies, while a plant (if I recall) uses only two. You can think of it this way. Wheat is say 1% efficient at solar collection, while even crappy solar cells are like 8%.
Of course you need to transmit electricity and re-emit the light efficiently. You will still end up with acres of solar panels, as I said. Before you jump on someone for getting their science wrong, make sure YOURS IS RIGHT!
- dalke 16y ago"a plant (if I recall) uses only two [frequencies]" You mis-recall. It has two peaks in the absorption spectra but they are not narrow. In other words, a plant is green. There's no way to absorb only two frequencies and still be green. "Wheat is say 1% efficient at solar collection" Using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency as a guide, about 28% of sunlight energy is collected by chlorophyl. Of that, much is used to keep the plant alive (sugar production, respiration, growing roots). About 1% is left for human use. It's the 28% that's relevant here, not the 1%. In other words, 28% for plants beats "crappy solar cells" at 8%. Now, 47% of the energy is outside the 400-700nm range that chlorophyll can process so you might be able to double the energy use if you can find a good way to upconvert/downconvert light into that range. That would at best double what you can grow. Which is still nowhere close to getting viable farming in an urban center.