4 ms·
Photosynthesis covers the vast majority of land and ocean available on Earth while solar panels cover far less. So in a way, photosynthesis is more efficient -
by senttoschool 4y ago
Photosynthesis covers the vast majority of land and ocean available on Earth while solar panels cover far less. So in a way, photosynthesis is more efficient - in a scalable way.
- XorNot 4y agoYeah but that's a function of self-replication. If you could engineer a tuber or vine which did nothing but try to build up a huge H+ ion gradient between it's roots and it's tip, then we could just let that grow indefinitely and use it as a battery directly. Similarly most models of "grey goo" would functionally be this: machines autonomously covering the biosphere in more efficient light harvesters.
- andreareina 4y agoThat's not how you measure efficiency
- senttoschool 4y agoHow do you measure efficiency?
- dymk 4y agoPer unit area or volume or mass
- senttoschool 4y agoBut efficient scaling counts too right?
- DemocracyFTW2 4y agoIn the reductive view, yes. But at some point one must also consider the entire ecosystem. Plants are very efficient in keeping the entire system running; fossil fuels are quite efficient in making it less hospitable to humans. That consideration goes beyond just talking about energy input or output per volume or mass (although in the end it cannot and should not divorce itself from those considerations lest it turns into pseudo-science like the many, many inane techno-scams are prone to do).
- colechristensen 4y agoI would bet the the current yearly growth rate of energy harvesting is greater for solar panels than plants :) and plants have a billion year head start. (This is of course a silly argument)