7 ms·
We should all take a moment and appreciate that plants are pegged to (IIRC) 10-15% theoretical max efficiency, and that's just in photocapture, it's even worse
by throwawaymaths 3y ago
We should all take a moment and appreciate that plants are pegged to (IIRC) 10-15% theoretical max efficiency, and that's just in photocapture, it's even worse when you factor in chemical inefficies in storage and conversion of sugars back to usable atp (which it must do to use the energy)
- nightfly 3y agoPlants also are able to make more of themselves from dirt out of pennies worth of matterial
- ben_w 3y agoMostly they make themselves out of air, which is even better. The dirt has necessary trace elements, but the carbon? That's all from CO2.
- goldenkey 3y agoIn the same vein, most of our energy comes from oxygen, not the food we eat :-) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6379287/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6379287/
- throwawaymaths 3y agoOh man you've never cared for trees/plants have you. Some of em (most often the ones you "want") are total crybabies over those "trace elements". You can't have DNA without phosphorus, for example, and many plants can't make nitrogen from air. Don't get me started on magnesium (needed for chlorophyll)
- chewbacha 3y agoI understand what you mean but the vast majority of their structure is carbon based and that comes from gaseous CO2. Can’t survive without the dirt but can’t get big without CO2
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI want to suggest re-reading their comment. “mostly they make themselves from air” and “dirt has necessary trace elements” are both 100% factually correct. The word “necessary” covers what you are saying in your comment. There’s no need to suggest they haven’t raised plants when what they said is literally correct.
- sbierwagen 3y agohttps://nutrients.ifas.ufl.edu/nutrient_pages/bsfpages/EssentialSub2.htm https://nutrients.ifas.ufl.edu/nutrient_pages/bsfpages/Essen... element %, dry wt. oxygen 45 carbon 44 hydrogen 6.3 nitrogen 1.3 silicon 1.2 potassium 0.9 calcium 0.25 phosphorus 0.16 magnesium 0.16 sulfur 0.15 chlorine 0.15 aluminum 0.11 sodium 0.03 iron 0.009 manganese 0.006 zinc 0.003 boron 0.001 copper 0.0005 molybdenum 0.0001 Just CHON is 96.6% of plant mass. Adding silicon, potassium and calcium brings it up to 98.95%
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- swayvil 3y agoAnd self-repair. And self propagate. They are definitely not optimized solely for making energy.
- londons_explore 3y agoIt's kinda surprising that plant efficiency is so low, considering the absolutely massive number of plants and the hundreds of millions of years of competitive evolution to collect as much energy from sunlight as possible.
- api 3y agoOther limiting resources dominate over energy availability for plants.
- nightfly 3y agoI think they just don't have any need/pressure to be more efficient than that
- londons_explore 3y agoIf you can collect more carbon, you can grow faster, letting you put big leaves to collect more light and overshadow and kill all the plants below you. Being a plant is, locally, a winner-takes-all market. So there is a very strong incentive for carbon-efficiency.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoNext thing -HN guys discovers that markets aren’t any more efficient than plants are
- padolsey 3y agoHmmm, I don’t think that's accurate. To label plant ecosystems as 'winner-takes-all' really misses the forest for the trees (sorry..!). It's not all about sun-hogging; different species have unique needs and abilities, thrive in symbiotic relationships, and flourish under different conditions. For instance, take the relationship between certain fungi and tree roots, where the fungi provide the trees with hard-to-reach nutrients and, in turn, the trees supply sugars to the fungi. It's not a simple competition, it's a world full of complex interactions, adaptations and interdependencies. That's generally why we refer to these as 'ecosystems', no?
- londons_explore 3y ago> plants are pegged to (IIRC) 10-15% theoretical max efficiency I suspect this is soon to change.... With CO2 levels around 280 ppm, the biggest challenge for many plants is finding a carbon atom - in fact, many plants grow just as fast under just 10% brightness sunlight. Now that CO2 is up at 420 ppm, it's far easier to find carbon, so now the evolutionary race will be on to collect more sunlight and grow faster. And plants have done this before, ~20 million years ago, so somewhere there are probably some recessive genes just waiting for their moment to shine again, and natural selection will make them spread like wildfire.
- c_crank 3y agoIt's good news for maize. That's a very carbon hungry crop.
- themitigating 3y agoAnd the way we use it also creating a bunch of carbon.
- c_crank 3y agoIn the sense that animals and human beings are big blobs of carbon, yes. Ethanol isn't the primary output of maize.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoThe growing and processing of it uses large quantities of carbon inputs. Diesel and fertilizer.
- c_crank 3y agoThe use of those inputs isn't creating carbon, just transforming it. Carbon fueled fertilizer is also used for all other cereal crops under the sun.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThey trade efficiency with the ability to rebuild themselves for centuries out of air.
- mulmen 3y agoThis is fascinating. I assumed plants were far more efficient at extracting energy from sunlight but I had no reason to believe that. What is the source of this claim? Is it efficiency of a leaf in direct sunlight? Or of the entire plant with leaves wherever they may be?
- charrondev 3y agoWhat does 3 dots like this mean? I’ve been seeing it a lot recently.
- alliao 3y agoI read somewhere they don't opt for maximum efficiency turns out when it's most efficient it becomes too varied for efficient consistent atp or something, amazing stuff
- throwawaymaths 3y agoDon't know where you heard that. PsI and PSII are definitely subject to lots of optimization towards efficiency.
- ciconia 3y ago> plants are pegged to (IIRC) 10-15% theoretical max efficiency... OTOH, plants (i.e. trees) can live for hundreds of years, they are self-replicating, they extract their own minerals from the ground, require very little energy input to put in place, play an crucial role in the water cycle [1], reduce the albedo effect [2], cool the air [3], provide a habitat for a multitude of species, and bring joy to our hearts. Oh, I almost forgot, they also fix carbon! And they do all this for free, the only thing you have to do is, you know, not cut them down. I would say that's a pretty good deal. [1] https://sustainablefootprint.org/nederlands-trees-and-the-water-cycle/ https://sustainablefootprint.org/nederlands-trees-and-the-wa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Trees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Trees [3] https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/using-trees-and-vegetation-reduce-heat-islands https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/using-trees-and-vegetation-r...
- vintermann 3y agoTheoretical max efficiency on one particular step of the process. If you include such things as "rebuilding after a severe hailstorm" I think plants may still be impressively competitive.