3 ms·
This 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
by reportingsjr 6y ago
This 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.