3 ms·

Thanks for the insight. It's interesting why the external work supplied to the plants still costs less than growing plants that can do these things itself. I su

by ntoshev 18y ago

Thanks for the insight. It's interesting why the external work supplied to the plants still costs less than growing plants that can do these things itself. I suppose chemistry and mechanization in agriculture are just much more efficient than their biological counterparts.

randallsquared 18y ago
Almost certainly not more efficient, but growing plants can't use oil directly, and since we can supply enormous amounts of external energy by the standards of a crop plant, engineering them to be able to use it more effectively is useful even if the plant itself is less efficient overall.
- ntoshev 18y ago
  Not sure if energy is important part of the equation. Protection from diseases and weather doesn't seem to require energy, it's about chemistry and structure.
- nostrademons 18y ago
  Almost any sort of mechanical or chemical process is more efficient than plants. Photosynthesis is only 3% efficient; by the time the energy enters the plant, you've lost 97% of it. Then you figure various biological pathways, and you're down to maybe 1-2% efficiency for the best plants. This, among other reasons, is why grain ethanol was such a scam. The worst mechanical processes, by contrast, usually get at least 10-15% efficiency. That's what photovoltaics can do, for example. Gasoline engines have a thermal efficiency of about 30%, diesel about 45%. Granted, you lose energy in the extraction/refining/transportation steps, but it's still an order of magnitude more efficient than photosynthesis.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    I did not know that. Thanks.
  - opticksversi 18y ago
    http://www.life.uiuc.edu/govindjee/whatisit.htm http://www.life.uiuc.edu/govindjee/whatisit.htm The primary [photosynthetic] reactions have close to 100% quantum efficiency (i.e., one quantum of light leads to one electron transfer); and under most ideal conditions, the overall energy efficiency can reach 35%. Due to losses at all steps in biochemistry, one has been able to get only about 1 to 2% energy efficiency in most crop plants. Sugarcane is an exception as it can have almost 8% efficiency.
bd 18y ago
Using externally supplied fossil-fuel is kind of cheating. The energy still comes from photosynthesis, but the energy that was created over eons is used in (geological) moments. It's somehow similar venture capital. It's a resource produced in older times that allows you to get temporary advantage compared to somebody that uses just in-time generated resources.

by ntoshev 18y ago

randallsquared 18y ago

Almost certainly not more efficient, but growing plants can't use oil directly, and since we can supply enormous amounts of external energy by the standards of a crop plant, engineering them to be able to use it more effectively is useful even if the plant itself is less efficient overall.

ntoshev 18y ago
Not sure if energy is important part of the equation. Protection from diseases and weather doesn't seem to require energy, it's about chemistry and structure.
nostrademons 18y ago
Almost any sort of mechanical or chemical process is more efficient than plants. Photosynthesis is only 3% efficient; by the time the energy enters the plant, you've lost 97% of it. Then you figure various biological pathways, and you're down to maybe 1-2% efficiency for the best plants. This, among other reasons, is why grain ethanol was such a scam. The worst mechanical processes, by contrast, usually get at least 10-15% efficiency. That's what photovoltaics can do, for example. Gasoline engines have a thermal efficiency of about 30%, diesel about 45%. Granted, you lose energy in the extraction/refining/transportation steps, but it's still an order of magnitude more efficient than photosynthesis.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  I did not know that. Thanks.
- opticksversi 18y ago
  http://www.life.uiuc.edu/govindjee/whatisit.htm http://www.life.uiuc.edu/govindjee/whatisit.htm The primary [photosynthetic] reactions have close to 100% quantum efficiency (i.e., one quantum of light leads to one electron transfer); and under most ideal conditions, the overall energy efficiency can reach 35%. Due to losses at all steps in biochemistry, one has been able to get only about 1 to 2% energy efficiency in most crop plants. Sugarcane is an exception as it can have almost 8% efficiency.

bd 18y ago

Using externally supplied fossil-fuel is kind of cheating. The energy still comes from photosynthesis, but the energy that was created over eons is used in (geological) moments. It's somehow similar venture capital. It's a resource produced in older times that allows you to get temporary advantage compared to somebody that uses just in-time generated resources.