Re: photochemical advance

Date: Mon Dec 10 2001 - 11:19:55 MST

On 2001.12.09, Mike Lorrey <> wrote:
> 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.

I don't remember this dismissal. Drexler proposes having the roadways
also be solar collectors. Is this "simply a stupid idea"?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT