4 ms·
More direct perhaps, but not more efficient. So far nature has far outstripped us in the ability to collect energy from photons. Using the sun to grow plants a
by NickPollard 15y ago
More direct perhaps, but not more efficient. So far nature has far outstripped us in the ability to collect energy from photons.
Using the sun to grow plants and then harvesting those plants for their chemicals is still more efficient than most photo-voltaic cells.
- Joakal 15y agoSource of efficiency? This chart makes me think you're making things up: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:PVeff%28rev100921%29.jpg https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:PVeff%28...
- Unseelie 15y agoTo back that chart up, photosynthesis generally works at around 5% efficiency.
- oelewapperke 15y agoWhich agricultural plant gets 5% efficient photosynthesis ? That's huge. 2% is quite a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
- Unseelie 15y agosugarcane?
- Unseelie 15y agoTo back that chart up, photosynthesis generally works at around 5% efficiency.
- oelewapperke 15y agoPerhaps he means if you're using solar cells followed by Fisher-Tropsch to make actual fuel. I'm pretty sure plants beat that. But the base efficiency of plants is horrible : 2% is relatively high in plant species (solar energy input -> produced plant matter output). The most efficient plants in the world are close to 4.5% efficient.
- NickPollard 15y agoI'll dig around and see if I can find the source where I read this, but otherwise it looks like I was wrong. My bad.
- lutorm 15y agoFrom a pure energy efficiency perspective, it's not. A more relevant parameter might be energy return per human energy input, where letting plants do their thing and then using them is pretty darn efficient.