11–20 of 29 posts
This is pretty awesome. A lot of vegetables are grown in greenhouses, but traditional greenhouses are quite energy intensive. Anything that reduces the need for greenhouse area could save quite a bit of carbon. Paired with techniques [1] to reduce the amount of heating needed, this could be a real game changer. [1] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/12/reinventing-the-gree...
I wonder what would be the side-effects of speeding up plant growth.
Since numbers and mechanisms aren't really explained I'll drop some numbers here: ~50% of incoming sunlight energy is lost to plants just by falling outside of the range that chlorophyll can absorb (400-700nm). ~25% of the light energy that is absorbed, is lost by dropping the higher energy wavelength light (the 400nm/blueish end) to the 700nm level needed for the rest of the process.
Just from these two losses you're at 37.5% efficiency, so converting to better wavelength light either by quantum dot or solar panels/LEDs has a massive impact on crops grown per area, particularly in higher latitudes.
Just for reference, the most efficient plants (heavily bred/modified crops) are in the range of 1-2% efficient for the whole photosynthetic process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you have a point. There's no free lunch in evolution based systems, at least that's my perception.
No evolution needs to happen in a controlled environment.
Would this make up the difference for the dimmer light on Mars?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No evolution needs to happen in a controlled environment.
Plants have evolved to adapt to a certain environment, and if we change those parameters to promote a certain behaviour (e.g. higher yield) then most likely it comes at a cost (e.g. is the produce less nutritious?)
I wonder what would be the side-effects of speeding up plant growth.