Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

blog.suny.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#31

Post by TheGrassyKnoll »

duaneb wrote: post #18
lentil_soup wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually quite a few scientists tried to stop that kickstarter because of the dangers it could prove to the ecosystem: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2013/jun/0...

They didn't really outline what dangers exactly it could prove to the ecosystem.... I'm sure there are some, but it's hardly obvious. It's not like the gene will stick around without human effort.

> They didn't really outline what dangers...

Anyone who's had to muck with a giant piece of spaghetti code realizes how dicey it is to start changing things you don't really understand.

Projects like this and maybe tens of thousands of others in the future could interact to create strange changes in the wild that no one would be able to completely explain.

Maybe I'm just too much of a Luddite, or just an idiot (OK, I'm a complete fucking idiot), but projects like this and the thousands that are sure to follow give me an impending sense of doom.

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#32

Post by sampo »

mjt0229 wrote: post #23

Luciferin isn't what makes jellyfish glow, that's GFP. GFP, at least, requires a specific light input to cause the glow (UV at a particular wavelength depending on the molecule). I don't know about Luciferin, though.

Luciferin is what makes fireflys glow. Luciferin really produces light from chemical energy. GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) is just fluorescent, not luminescent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferin

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#33

Post by Terr_ »

This over-hyped crap again? Humbug!

Call me when someone solves the REAL problem, which is the energy budget needed to make the amount of light people actually want.

That'll probably involve some way to shunt externally-generated electrical power into the tree.

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#34

Post by hellbanner »

Terr_ wrote: post #33

This over-hyped crap again ? Humbug! Call me when someone solves the REAL problem, which is the energy budget needed to make the amount of light people actually want. That'll probably involve some way to shunt externally-generated electrical power into the tree.

Seriously. I saw a video from a major oil company (Exxon IIRC) sponsoring a demo day. "We want to power the cities of the future" it said. Those cities were dozens of skyscrapers filled with electricity -- people watching giant televisions, using giant iPads, every thing in their home, work and street just glowing.

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#35

Post by CamperBob2 »

TheGrassyKnoll wrote: post #31
duaneb wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't really outline what dangers exactly it could prove to the ecosystem.... I'm sure there are some, but it's hardly obvious. It's not like the gene will stick around without human effort.

> They didn't really outline what dangers... Anyone who's had to muck with a giant piece of spaghetti code realizes how dicey it is to start changing things you don't really understand. Projects like this and maybe tens of thousands of others in the future could interact to create strange changes in the wild that no one would be able to completely explain. Maybe I'm just too much of a Luddite, or just an idiot (OK, I…

Organisms aren't computer programs. The point raised earlier about the added energy drain being a handicap to natural selection is spot-on.

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#36

Post by devindotcom »

The processes involved are orders of magnitude below the scale needed to produce usable light. And in the plants it's been tested in, it's also fatal after a short time. These aren't trivial problems, and they're not going to be solved by a designer photoshopping a concept.

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#37

Post by teekert »

devindotcom wrote: post #36

The processes involved are orders of magnitude below the scale needed to produce usable light. And in the plants it's been tested in, it's also fatal after a short time. These aren't trivial problems, and they're not going to be solved by a designer photoshopping a concept.

Exactly, I once did the calculation, they use the protein luciferase, which requires 1 molecule of Lucferin and 1 molecule of ATP per photon produced! That means if you were to produce say 200 lm (about the output of a 40W incandescent light bulb) you'd need kilo's of ATP and Luciferin a week. Don't expect useful light.

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#38

Post by brahadeesh »

Terr_ wrote: post #33

This over-hyped crap again ? Humbug! Call me when someone solves the REAL problem, which is the energy budget needed to make the amount of light people actually want. That'll probably involve some way to shunt externally-generated electrical power into the tree.

They way I see it, it's not going to completely replace street lighting. It's going to supplement available light, thus reducing our energy consumption among other benefits like producing oxygen. I'm especially excited about the possibility of genetically modifying trees that produce edible stuff to have bio luminescence, that'd be pretty cool.

Re: Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting

#39

Post by brahadeesh »

dmritard96 wrote: post #14

Maybe I follow YC stuff too much but it seems this be an attempt to build momentum for the YC company working on this? http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/11/glowing-plant-is-one-of-y-c...

I'm not working for that startup or any startup for that matter.
Post reply on HN