4 ms·
I mean, photosynthesis is only about 1% efficient in the real world, whereas modern solar panels (the ones you can buy, not the ones in a research lab) are alre
by karagenit 4y ago
I mean, photosynthesis is only about 1% efficient in the real world, whereas modern solar panels (the ones you can buy, not the ones in a research lab) are already at about 15%. I think there’s plenty of room for improvement in the efficiency of meat production too.
- ibz 4y agoDepends how you measure it. You can indeed achieve higher efficiency than nature if you look at a single number. Where nature always wins is the combined efficiency, because it acts as a whole. You example is great because it shows just that. Solar panels might give better absolute numbers but: they are not recyclable, they can't feed cows, they are manufactured in China using materials coming from mines around the world. They need complex set-up and maintenance. Grass if fully recyclable - in fact it builds soil after dying. It feeds other animals. It protects the soil from erosion. It mines its own materials while growing, in fact it even bootstraps itself given just a seed containing all the code that it ever needs. A F1 car is faster on a race track, but a bicycle gets the job done much more efficiently in most cities around the world for most tasks.