6 ms·

Artificial photosynthesis can produce food without sunshine

104 points by panabee 4y ago

mycowerk 4y ago
Cultivation of caloric crops are one of the largest contributors to agricultural land use. Disruption here would have a huge environmental impact. Once carbon dioxide has been fixed you can use carbohydrates as an energy feedstock for many downstream organisms. Where's our lab grown starch startups at?
skymer 4y ago
Pure clickbait. Solar panels turn sunlight into electricity. Electrolysis creates acetate. Mushrooms, yeast, algae grow in acetate.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  I was going to say: Photosythesis without light? You don't need a science degree or even read to article to know the title is utter rubbish.
- capitainenemo 4y ago
  Only if you start from solar panels. Yeast and green algae could be grown from anything that produces electricity at that point (geothermal, nuclear). I'm guessing the complexity and costs don't warrant using it on Earth, thus the suggestion of use on Mars. Also. From the article. "The potential for employing this technology to grow crop plants was also investigated. Cowpea, tomato, tobacco, rice, canola, and green pea were all able to utilize carbon from acetate when cultivated in the dark. 'We found that a wide range of crops could take the acetate we provided and build it into the major molecular building blocks an organism needs to grow and thrive.'" … "“Imagine someday giant vessels growing tomato plants in the dark and on Mars—how much easier would that be for future Martians?”"
  - capitainenemo 4y ago
    Hm, I guess the efficiency part is possibly interesting on Earth too. Could allow for fresh produce in inaccessible areas with limited space and difficult shipping, even if the power was solar collected, given the efficiencies are so much higher than plant photosynthesis. South pole research station, small islands with infrequent shipping, nuclear submarines.
    - jonnycomputer 4y ago
      From a land-use perspective, growing this way can be very efficient. With most industrially grown crops you are essentially limited to one "layer" of crops; but here you could stack crops in a warehouse (though similar arguments apply to vertical farms using artificial light).
      - mlyle 4y ago
        > (though similar arguments apply to vertical farms using artificial light). Other than this could potentially reduce the energy requirement by 75% or more.
  - mgerdts 4y ago
    > Imagine someday giant vessels growing tomato plants in the dark and on Mars—how much easier would that be for future Martians? Tomatoes are naturally pollinated only by bees. If you don’t have pollination, you don’t have tomatoes. Artificial pollination of tomatoes requires some that vibrates like a bee. Such devices are called tomato ticklers. Efficient pollination seems like a bit of a problem to solve at scale.
    - orionion 4y ago
      That was solved long ago... Tomato & Blossom Set Spray contains a plant hormone found in nature that promotes blossom set and fruit development. Use to promote fruit to set and for larger fruits and vegetables https://bonide.com/product/tomato-blossom-set-spray-rtu/ https://bonide.com/product/tomato-blossom-set-spray-rtu/
- witrak 4y ago
  Article in the second statement refers to the efficiency of natural plants' way of food production: "This process, however, is very inefficient, with only about 1% of the energy found in sunlight ending up in the plant." So comparing it to the current efficiency of photovoltaic sources of energy (up to 50% https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/photovoltaics-and-electricity.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/photovoltaics-and-...) and allowing for a lot of losses of energy in the whole process it is still not unexpected to have a couple of times better effectiveness than of natural process. It's worth reading a bit more than the header...
imtringued 4y ago
Why not skip the plant and go straight for artificial starch synthesis? Producing food without sunshine really isn't a problem that needs to be solved. If there were free lunches plants would have evolved them. https://newatlas.com/science/artificial-synthesis-starch-from-co2/ https://newatlas.com/science/artificial-synthesis-starch-fro...
- Gravityloss 4y ago
  Yes, it's a bit like the problem with biofuels and internal combustion engines - there's a lot of waste and destruction [1]. Solar panels with electric cars are a lot more direct and efficient route for the same mobility. There should be billions pouring into artificial food. It would solve so many problems that we have. 1: Ocean dead zones for example: https://www.vims.edu/research/topics/dead_zones/index.php https://www.vims.edu/research/topics/dead_zones/index.php
- nine_k 4y ago
  Plants have hard time evolving parts that require large pieces of crystalline silicon. If we can boost plant production using electricity generated by solar panels next (or above) the fields or greenhouses, it could be great. An not only on Mars or Moon, but here on Earth, too. Faster growth may mean two crops per year instead of one in some places. Acetate is easy to store, so it's a good way to apply the excess solar output during day, and excess nuclear output at night time.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > An not only on Mars or Moon, but here on Earth, too. I think it'll be niche on Earth, but maybe it has a role to play-- e.g. for food security for cold nations that already rely on greenhouses and could improve yields.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      Most of Europe can only have one crop of many cultures per year. What if some of them could grow faster and fit two crops into the summer? This might be useful not only in places like Sweden, but even in places like France.
kleton 4y ago
Animals can use acetate directly as a carbon and energy source. For bovines it’s probably at least half of their input, with much of the rest being other volatile fatty acids.
photochemsyn 4y ago
Previous discussion here, linked to original research report: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867921 As an aside, university press releases are probably the worst source of information on new research reports, they're almost always one-sided puff pieces comparable to corporate press releases promoting some new product.
icod1 4y ago
There's food (aka good tasting food, which was exposed to the sun and grown in the open) and there's FoOd (aka tastes like water, grown under glass). Most of the food you can buy nowadays, even on "local markets", is the latter variant. Cheaply produced without taste or value that lasts for weeks without going bad. Unhealthy food. And it's making us more stupid because we don't get enough of the nutrition we usually would. I remember the story about 2 girls from India who moved to the UK. They would get ill and no reason could be found until someone had the idea that the food in India was actual natural food, and the food in the UK was this watered down food. How often do you eat a tomato nowadays that tastes like a tomato and not like a watermelon without the taste?
- EUROCARE 4y ago
  Glass in between the light has absolutely no relation to taste or other properties. My own best veggies are grown in a greenhouse. It's about the soil and what you grow - commercial strains are not selected for taste but durability/good looks. If you grew the same commercial strain """naturally""" you'd still get bad taste.
- andrewl 4y ago
  Can you point to an article about the two girls from India?
diego_moita 4y ago
During space age, in the 60s, "astronaut food" was all the rage: lyophilized/freeze dried food, nutrient pills, ... people thought the future of food was tech-food. 60 years later and the greatest market trends in food are organic, all natural, whole foods, "terroir" and origin certified foods, ... Moral of the story: people just don't trust in techies for gastronomy.
- bognition 4y ago
  It’s more than lack of trust, it’s that naturally grown food just tastes better and is better for you. It turns out that high-quality food is more than just carbs, protein, and fat.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    While high quality is indeed more than just carbs, protein, and fat, it’s equally an oversimplification to talk of “naturally grown” when that was last true a bit before the domestication of plants and agricultural animals (c. 13k BC), and the invention of basic irrigation and the discovery that crop rotation helped yields (both c. 6k BC).
- yegle 4y ago
  Is organic/all nature food actually more nutritious and backed by science? Otherwise nothing has changed: we care more about how the food is produced instead of whether it's actually better.
  - kurupt213 4y ago
    If it’s actually organic it’s likely pesticide free which is probably better for you. Pesticides are for avoiding famine, not ensuring your food is 100% the most healthy for you.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > Is organic/all nature food actually more nutritious and backed by science? Yes to both. There is plenty of literature available. Most industrial agricolture is entirely optimized for maximum yield measured in weight, not measured in vitamin content or taste or health.
kjkjadksj 4y ago
Where is the plant getting its NPK in this system?
peter_d_sherman 4y ago
>"Experiments showed that a wide range of food-producing organisms can be grown in the dark directly on the acetate-rich electrolyzer output, including green algae, yeast, and fungal mycelium that produce mushrooms. Producing algae with this technology is approximately fourfold more energy efficient than growing it photosynthetically. Yeast production is about 18-fold more energy efficient than how it is typically cultivated using sugar extracted from corn." Absolutely brilliant!
- B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
  >> grown in the dark > brilliant! Please let go of my leg. And how much of a saving is being "more energy-efficient" than zero-cost sunlight?

104 points by panabee 4y ago

Cultivation of caloric crops are one of the largest contributors to agricultural land use. Disruption here would have a huge environmental impact. Once carbon dioxide has been fixed you can use carbohydrates as an energy feedstock for many downstream organisms. Where's our lab grown starch startups at?

skymer 4y ago

Pure clickbait. Solar panels turn sunlight into electricity. Electrolysis creates acetate. Mushrooms, yeast, algae grow in acetate.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
I was going to say: Photosythesis without light? You don't need a science degree or even read to article to know the title is utter rubbish.
capitainenemo 4y ago
Only if you start from solar panels. Yeast and green algae could be grown from anything that produces electricity at that point (geothermal, nuclear). I'm guessing the complexity and costs don't warrant using it on Earth, thus the suggestion of use on Mars. Also. From the article. "The potential for employing this technology to grow crop plants was also investigated. Cowpea, tomato, tobacco, rice, canola, and green pea were all able to utilize carbon from acetate when cultivated in the dark. 'We found that a wide range of crops could take the acetate we provided and build it into the major molecular building blocks an organism needs to grow and thrive.'" … "“Imagine someday giant vessels growing tomato plants in the dark and on Mars—how much easier would that be for future Martians?”"
- capitainenemo 4y ago
  Hm, I guess the efficiency part is possibly interesting on Earth too. Could allow for fresh produce in inaccessible areas with limited space and difficult shipping, even if the power was solar collected, given the efficiencies are so much higher than plant photosynthesis. South pole research station, small islands with infrequent shipping, nuclear submarines.
  - jonnycomputer 4y ago
    From a land-use perspective, growing this way can be very efficient. With most industrially grown crops you are essentially limited to one "layer" of crops; but here you could stack crops in a warehouse (though similar arguments apply to vertical farms using artificial light).
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > (though similar arguments apply to vertical farms using artificial light). Other than this could potentially reduce the energy requirement by 75% or more.
- mgerdts 4y ago
  > Imagine someday giant vessels growing tomato plants in the dark and on Mars—how much easier would that be for future Martians? Tomatoes are naturally pollinated only by bees. If you don’t have pollination, you don’t have tomatoes. Artificial pollination of tomatoes requires some that vibrates like a bee. Such devices are called tomato ticklers. Efficient pollination seems like a bit of a problem to solve at scale.
  - orionion 4y ago
    That was solved long ago... Tomato & Blossom Set Spray contains a plant hormone found in nature that promotes blossom set and fruit development. Use to promote fruit to set and for larger fruits and vegetables https://bonide.com/product/tomato-blossom-set-spray-rtu/ https://bonide.com/product/tomato-blossom-set-spray-rtu/
witrak 4y ago
Article in the second statement refers to the efficiency of natural plants' way of food production: "This process, however, is very inefficient, with only about 1% of the energy found in sunlight ending up in the plant." So comparing it to the current efficiency of photovoltaic sources of energy (up to 50% https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/photovoltaics-and-electricity.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/photovoltaics-and-...) and allowing for a lot of losses of energy in the whole process it is still not unexpected to have a couple of times better effectiveness than of natural process. It's worth reading a bit more than the header...

imtringued 4y ago

Why not skip the plant and go straight for artificial starch synthesis? Producing food without sunshine really isn't a problem that needs to be solved. If there were free lunches plants would have evolved them. https://newatlas.com/science/artificial-synthesis-starch-from-co2/ https://newatlas.com/science/artificial-synthesis-starch-fro...

Gravityloss 4y ago
Yes, it's a bit like the problem with biofuels and internal combustion engines - there's a lot of waste and destruction [1]. Solar panels with electric cars are a lot more direct and efficient route for the same mobility. There should be billions pouring into artificial food. It would solve so many problems that we have. 1: Ocean dead zones for example: https://www.vims.edu/research/topics/dead_zones/index.php https://www.vims.edu/research/topics/dead_zones/index.php
nine_k 4y ago
Plants have hard time evolving parts that require large pieces of crystalline silicon. If we can boost plant production using electricity generated by solar panels next (or above) the fields or greenhouses, it could be great. An not only on Mars or Moon, but here on Earth, too. Faster growth may mean two crops per year instead of one in some places. Acetate is easy to store, so it's a good way to apply the excess solar output during day, and excess nuclear output at night time.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > An not only on Mars or Moon, but here on Earth, too. I think it'll be niche on Earth, but maybe it has a role to play-- e.g. for food security for cold nations that already rely on greenhouses and could improve yields.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Most of Europe can only have one crop of many cultures per year. What if some of them could grow faster and fit two crops into the summer? This might be useful not only in places like Sweden, but even in places like France.

kleton 4y ago

Animals can use acetate directly as a carbon and energy source. For bovines it’s probably at least half of their input, with much of the rest being other volatile fatty acids.

photochemsyn 4y ago

Previous discussion here, linked to original research report: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867921 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867921 As an aside, university press releases are probably the worst source of information on new research reports, they're almost always one-sided puff pieces comparable to corporate press releases promoting some new product.

icod1 4y ago

There's food (aka good tasting food, which was exposed to the sun and grown in the open) and there's FoOd (aka tastes like water, grown under glass). Most of the food you can buy nowadays, even on "local markets", is the latter variant. Cheaply produced without taste or value that lasts for weeks without going bad. Unhealthy food. And it's making us more stupid because we don't get enough of the nutrition we usually would. I remember the story about 2 girls from India who moved to the UK. They would get ill and no reason could be found until someone had the idea that the food in India was actual natural food, and the food in the UK was this watered down food. How often do you eat a tomato nowadays that tastes like a tomato and not like a watermelon without the taste?

EUROCARE 4y ago
Glass in between the light has absolutely no relation to taste or other properties. My own best veggies are grown in a greenhouse. It's about the soil and what you grow - commercial strains are not selected for taste but durability/good looks. If you grew the same commercial strain """naturally""" you'd still get bad taste.
andrewl 4y ago
Can you point to an article about the two girls from India?

diego_moita 4y ago

During space age, in the 60s, "astronaut food" was all the rage: lyophilized/freeze dried food, nutrient pills, ... people thought the future of food was tech-food. 60 years later and the greatest market trends in food are organic, all natural, whole foods, "terroir" and origin certified foods, ... Moral of the story: people just don't trust in techies for gastronomy.

bognition 4y ago
It’s more than lack of trust, it’s that naturally grown food just tastes better and is better for you. It turns out that high-quality food is more than just carbs, protein, and fat.
- ben_w 4y ago
  While high quality is indeed more than just carbs, protein, and fat, it’s equally an oversimplification to talk of “naturally grown” when that was last true a bit before the domestication of plants and agricultural animals (c. 13k BC), and the invention of basic irrigation and the discovery that crop rotation helped yields (both c. 6k BC).
yegle 4y ago
Is organic/all nature food actually more nutritious and backed by science? Otherwise nothing has changed: we care more about how the food is produced instead of whether it's actually better.
- kurupt213 4y ago
  If it’s actually organic it’s likely pesticide free which is probably better for you. Pesticides are for avoiding famine, not ensuring your food is 100% the most healthy for you.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > Is organic/all nature food actually more nutritious and backed by science? Yes to both. There is plenty of literature available. Most industrial agricolture is entirely optimized for maximum yield measured in weight, not measured in vitamin content or taste or health.

kjkjadksj 4y ago

Where is the plant getting its NPK in this system?

peter_d_sherman 4y ago

>"Experiments showed that a wide range of food-producing organisms can be grown in the dark directly on the acetate-rich electrolyzer output, including green algae, yeast, and fungal mycelium that produce mushrooms. Producing algae with this technology is approximately fourfold more energy efficient than growing it photosynthetically. Yeast production is about 18-fold more energy efficient than how it is typically cultivated using sugar extracted from corn." Absolutely brilliant!

B1FF_PSUVM 4y ago
>> grown in the dark > brilliant! Please let go of my leg. And how much of a saving is being "more energy-efficient" than zero-cost sunlight?