18 ms·
Quantum Dots Shift Sunlight's Spectrum to Speed Plant Growth
- kgdinesh 6y agoI wonder what would be the side-effects of speeding up plant growth.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hbogert 6y agoI think you have a point. There's no free lunch in evolution based systems, at least that's my perception.
- TomMarius 6y agoNo evolution needs to happen in a controlled environment.
- welfare 6y agoPlants have evolved to adapt to a certain environment, and if we change those parameters to promote a certain behaviour (e.g. higher yield) then most likely it comes at a cost (e.g. is the produce less nutritious?)
- TomMarius 6y agoEvolution does not optimize to global maxima, it prefers local maximas. The path it has taken so far is also pretty convoluted.
- spooneyluv 6y agoIt's pretty clear that sunlight isn't the absolute best spectrum for growing plants, so we know plants haven't evolved optimally to make use of the sun's spectrum as-is. I think a local max is the right idea. this tech is shortcutting that evolution and providing a better spectrum without using electricity, like LEDs would.
- Jyaif 6y agoWhy does the change have to be negative for humans? The products could just as well become more nutritious.
- Valgrim 6y agoI'm curious to know if there's a limit to selecting plants cultivars. What should we optimize for? Vitamins, minerals, proteins, glucids, lipids, fibers or other macromolecules? Should we allow some sacrifice in taste, appearance, yield, resistance, conservation?
- bingerman 6y agoIIRC there were some studies saying that higher CO2 in the atmosphere leads to better growth but lower nutritional value so that's one possible side-effect.
- moring 6y agoYou could probably distribute the light among a larger number of plants (think plants stacked on a shelf, or on a tilted surface), so you grow more instead of faster.
- adrianN 6y agoThis is pretty awesome. A lot of vegetables are grown in greenhouses, but traditional greenhouses are quite energy intensive. Anything that reduces the need for greenhouse area could save quite a bit of carbon. Paired with techniques [1] to reduce the amount of heating needed, this could be a real game changer. [1] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/reinventing-the-greenhouse.html https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/reinventing-the-gree...
- Narann 6y agoMaybe. The question is: Are QDs building energy efficient? Or does it require high-energy chemical reaction.
- 082349872349872 6y agoA long time ago I was looking at artificial chlorophyll. About all I remember is that in comparison to inorganics, that stuff's already super wideband and detuned. (OP is definitely a cool approach, anyone know anything about last year's progress in artificial chlorophylls?) Edit: as to the effects of speeding up plant growth, we've already had several instances in history where more intensive agricultual techniques have improved crop yields, some of which were by increasing number of harvests/season.
- superkuh 6y ago1200sq ft is currently $3600. https://www.ubiqd.shop/collections/frontpage/products/ubigro-600?variant=31115055628382 https://www.ubiqd.shop/collections/frontpage/products/ubigro... Also, whitepaper/case studies: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/e91a4987-3726-410f-8e4a-95cd1495a184/downloads/UbiGro%20White%20Paper_All_FullColor_EB050120.pdf?ver=1589220731742 https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/e91a4987-3726-410f-8e4a-95c...
- joss82 6y agoWhite paper tldr: between +5% (cannabis) and +20% yield (tomatoes). This is huge.
- ganzuul 6y agoWould this make up the difference for the dimmer light on Mars?
- sp332 6y agoThe white paper shows an increase of 20%, but solar irradiance on Mars is about 60% of what you can get on Earth (below the atmosphere). So it would be equivalent to 60% * 120% = 72%.
- sandworm101 6y ago60% is the total flux hitting the planet. Due to dust, the amount of light hitting the surface is generally much lower. During a dust storm, it can be as dark as an earth night.
- spooneyluv 6y agoapparently the company is working with NASA for crop growth in Lunar/Martian subterranean grow modules https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-awards-ubiqd-second-larger-contract-to-tailor-the-solar-spectrum-for-enhanced-crop-yield-for-space-missions-300967220.html https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/nasa-awards-ubiqd-s...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- reportingsjr 6y agoThis isn't too surprising. It's the same improvements people have been expecting from using solar panels and LEDs to grow plants. Since numbers and mechanisms aren't really explained I'll drop some numbers here: ~50% of incoming sunlight energy is lost to plants just by falling outside of the range that chlorophyll can absorb (400-700nm). ~25% of the light energy that is absorbed, is lost by dropping the higher energy wavelength light (the 400nm/blueish end) to the 700nm level needed for the rest of the process. Just from these two losses you're at 37.5% efficiency, so converting to better wavelength light either by quantum dot or solar panels/LEDs has a massive impact on crops grown per area, particularly in higher latitudes. Just for reference, the most efficient plants (heavily bred/modified crops) are in the range of 1-2% efficient for the whole photosynthetic process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
- xdze2 6y agonow I am wondering, why more efficient plants have not evolved by natural selection ?
- mrfusion 6y agoI’ve always wondered that too. Maybe evolution is stuck in a local optimum there.
- colechristensen 6y agoThere must be a pressure some pressure that gives enough advantage/disadvantage. Evolution isn’t about improvement just who survives to reproduce. Most improvements also come at some cost.
- lymeeducator 6y agoI think it's important to measure the plants entire molecular composition because uncertainty about what adaptations are skipped from growing across a broader spectrum of light?
- pythagoruz 6y ago#shutupandtakemymoney