4 ms·

Here's some information about it: https://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/protein-produced-from-electricity-to-alleviate-world-hun

by Geee 8y ago

Here's some information about it: https://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcPu/content/protein-produced-from-electricity-to-alleviate-world-hunger https://www.lut.fi/web/en/news/-/asset_publisher/lGh4SAywhcP... They say that compared to photosynthesis, it's 10x more energy efficient.

tomp 8y ago
Interesting, thanks! I wonder if that's algae photosynthesys, or plant photosynthesis - arguable the latter is "less efficient" because we eat only parts of the plant. In any case, I'm surprised that electrolysis is so efficient. I remember reading that it's so inefficient that the primary source of hydrogen is currently actually natural gas! And I wonder how sustainable is the process - doesn't electrolysis deplete the anode and catode, which need to be made of expensive materials for reasonable efficiency?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > arguable the latter is "less efficient" because we eat only parts of the plant Solar cells are more efficient than photosynthesis. “For...sunlight, where only 45% of the light is in the photosynthetically active wavelength range, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation“ [1]. Meanwhile, “solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 44.0% with multiple-junction production cells and 44.4% with multiple dies assembled into a hybrid package” [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency
  - tomp 8y ago
    To make the comparision meaningful, you need to compare the efficiency of the whole cycle (sunlight -> solar power -> electricity -> electrolysis -> hydrogen -> bacteria -> biomass) to photosynthesis (sunlight -> plant -> biomass).
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > you need to compare the efficiency of the whole cycle Top line, plants are taking 11% while we’re taking—on average—double that. We’re trying to turn the energy into stored calories. Plants are trying to plant. First-order estimates rarely present a more-compelling case.
      - tomp 8y ago
        Cool, interesting and fascinating. I can't wait until this is more wide-spread, both for terrestrial and space solutions. You seem to work in this industry, or at least very knowledgeable about it - any other companies you recommend I follow?
    - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
      I'd say for total transparency, you need to go even further back and calculate the energy and materials cost for making the solar panel. Plants reproduce themselves, and solar panels do not.

by Geee 8y ago

tomp 8y ago

Interesting, thanks! I wonder if that's algae photosynthesys, or plant photosynthesis - arguable the latter is "less efficient" because we eat only parts of the plant. In any case, I'm surprised that electrolysis is so efficient. I remember reading that it's so inefficient that the primary source of hydrogen is currently actually natural gas! And I wonder how sustainable is the process - doesn't electrolysis deplete the anode and catode, which need to be made of expensive materials for reasonable efficiency?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> arguable the latter is "less efficient" because we eat only parts of the plant Solar cells are more efficient than photosynthesis. “For...sunlight, where only 45% of the light is in the photosynthetically active wavelength range, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in an overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation“ [1]. Meanwhile, “solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 44.0% with multiple-junction production cells and 44.4% with multiple dies assembled into a hybrid package” [2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency
- tomp 8y ago
  To make the comparision meaningful, you need to compare the efficiency of the whole cycle (sunlight -> solar power -> electricity -> electrolysis -> hydrogen -> bacteria -> biomass) to photosynthesis (sunlight -> plant -> biomass).
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > you need to compare the efficiency of the whole cycle Top line, plants are taking 11% while we’re taking—on average—double that. We’re trying to turn the energy into stored calories. Plants are trying to plant. First-order estimates rarely present a more-compelling case.
    - tomp 8y ago
      Cool, interesting and fascinating. I can't wait until this is more wide-spread, both for terrestrial and space solutions. You seem to work in this industry, or at least very knowledgeable about it - any other companies you recommend I follow?
  - JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
    I'd say for total transparency, you need to go even further back and calculate the energy and materials cost for making the solar panel. Plants reproduce themselves, and solar panels do not.