Dossy wrote:
>
> On 2001.12.08, Robert J. Bradbury <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
> > Unless they make the case that the material is going to be able to absorb
> > and store the energy from multiple photons (exactly what the photosynthetic
> > reaction centers in plants do) they *aren't* going to be able to up the
> > efficiency by much. I don't doubt that some point we will be able
> > to grab multiple photons, store the energy efficiently, then redirect
> > it to split water, but I've got my doubts that it will be a "simple"
> > material to develop.
>
> Sometimes, the correct solution is (pick one:) the simplest one,
> a simple one, one that is simpler than people would consider.
>
> If the necesary materials to perform this process exist in common
> plants, then the challenge becomes building a (nano-?) machine
> that's capable of assembling the appropriate structures.
Photosynthesis is, at best, 3% efficient (compared to 35% for
photovoltaics). Since we've already previously examined, analysed, and
roundly dismissed photosynthesis as a viable energy alternative for
technological civilization, anything less efficient should be similarly
dismissed. The opportunity cost of filling up the landscape with solar
collectors other than those naturally evolved is simply a stupid idea,
as stupid as powering automobiles with maple syrup.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT