Recent Comment
Share
A team of reserachers led by Washington University in St. Louis has carried out a study that compares photosynthesis and photovoltaics, and finds that photovoltaics are the more efficient of the two (though that does depend on how you define "efficiency"). But, at the same time, they also point out that there may be opportunities in synthetic biology to improve on photosynthesis.
After our of recent articles on different ways of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using only sunlight and catalysts as a kind of artificial photosynthesis, it is interesting to have the perspective of this article, which is to be published in an upcoming issue of the magazine Science.
While standard photovoltaics can just produce electrons when they are able, plant photosynthesis needs to be able to sustain the plant at all times, or else it will die. For this reason, plant photosynthesis is more stable and robust, but at the same time, is less idealized to maximize energy production. The paper also discusses ways of making photovoltaic collectors more efficient by taking cues from the photosynthetic process.
"The point of the comparison is not to make us throw plants on the compost pile, the researchers said. For one, efficiency is only one consideration among many in the choice among energy technologies. More important are life-cycle costs, the capital cost and valuation of the environmental impact of a product from its creation to its destruction."
All factors including life-cycle costs, energy inputs, infrastructure requirements, and greenhouse gas balance need to be examined in order to determine the greatest total efficiency. But even if this a clear leader in efficiency, that should not necessarily result in dumping all technology into that one basket. Rather than using this analysis to pick a winner, it should serve to help improve other ways of doing things. Looking at the benefits each approach offers can give direction for how to improve the efficiency of other systems.
As an interesting aside, Dr. Daniel Nocera, the developer of the Sun Catalytix system is one of the several co-authors of this paper.
image: CC by Umberto Salvagnin/kaibara87
via: Solar Thermal Magazine and Michigan State University
[Edited to correct spelling of Nocera]
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Robin, May 18, 2011
-
- -3
-
-
written by Marcel, May 26, 2011
http://www.plant-e.com/
They use microbialfuecell technology to utillise the excess energy of plants. Plants put sugars into the ground when they cannot use or store that energy for growth. Bacteria then convert those sugars and the energy is "wasted". By using electrochemically active bacteria in a microbialfuecell set-up, you can harvest these sugars, without the need of harvesting the plant itself. With the right choice of fuel cell, bacteria and plant, this could in theory provide more energy then burning the plant itself.
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
We can't all grow rainforests on our balconies and harvest the energy from the plants to recharge our iPods. Nor can we all afford synthetic photosynthetic forests. They are just laboratory curiosities, the fodder of Buck Rogers style green blogs.
There is a way forward however. The way forward is THORIUM. PERSONAL THORIUM REACTORS. Personal reactors can be made small enough to carry in your pocket, or on your belt.
Citizens who have personal reactors can plug them into the grid at their workplace, transport and earn dollars for the power they supply back into the grid.
Thorium is the SAFE alternative to Uranium based power generators. Thorium is abundant in the earth's crust. We will never run out of Thorium. Spent Thorium fuel can be converted back into Thorium. It is impossible for a Thorium reactor to go into melt-down and finally, they do not emit harmful radiation.