What is Digg?40 Comments
- youannoyme, on 05/06/2009, -0/+24Because any time you transfer energy from one form to another there is loss, so if you can go straight from photosynthesis to electricity you can be more efficient. Because if we skip using a carbon vector for the energy, we can maybe avoid all the wonderful byproducts of combustion based consumptions. Because this can be used to generate electricity local to its use and avoid transport costs, whether they be losses over transmission lines, or the literal cost of shipping it around the country in big trucks.
- durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -0/+7
"translating that biology into working electronics is a whole different set of problems."
A whole set of problems we wouldn't even know about, let alone be capable of solving, were we not to have taken this first step. - copypastry, on 05/06/2009, -0/+6Excellent job on the explanation. I wish I could digg you twice.
- bkurilko, on 05/06/2009, -1/+6needs more f
- youannoyme, on 05/06/2009, -0/+5Except that these are not your garden vegetables. They were studying a special class of bacteria that *is* efficient.
FTA
"We found that the orientation of the chlorophyll molecules make green bacteria extremely efficient at harvesting light,"
"The ability to capture light energy and rapidly deliver it to where it needs to go is essential to these bacteria, some of which see only a few photons of light per chlorophyll per day." - blitzkriegpunk, on 05/06/2009, -1/+6Will I need to water my solar panels? :(
- NiftyG, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4Don't get too excited. All they did was figure out the biological process of this efficient light gathering bacteria. While it's good knowledge to have, translating that biology into working electronics is a whole different set of problems.
- askantik, on 05/06/2009, -0/+4I've always thought the best ideas were the ones that modeled themselves after the natural world; it has a proven record of success over many, many years.
- inactive, on 05/06/2009, -0/+3But what will the coal companies do if this succeeds!
Probably lobby and show pictures of the people who are out of work. - FDisk, on 05/06/2009, -1/+4Am I the only one that heard about this like 8 years ago?
- fooljoe, on 05/08/2009, -0/+2yes I read where the article claimed that the bacteria were "efficient", but without some kinda number I'm not going to get too excited.
in any case, I'm not suggesting that this research doesn't show promise, but my point is just that what we have now works good enough, and I'm tired of news about research like this when if we're ever going to solve our energy crisis we need to start production now with currently-available technology. articles like this are just a distraction from the urgency of the situation. - untouchableLENS, on 05/06/2009, -4/+6Movie Idea:
An international team of scientists grow massive amounts of green bacteria only to have the bacteria grow evil and out of control with solar energy and plague the world with burning infections.
I can feel the buries coming already but I think it has potential, just need to think about how to word it and expand on this idea. Copyright pending. - sean151, on 05/06/2009, -2/+4I read an article on this 4 years ago. This one doesn't seem much further down the line.
- sherrington19, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2dark-matter FTW
- 13letterslong, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3Only if you want the energy collected to be used to do something with the water. Plants collect energy and use it to do some chemistry - water and carbon dioxide into sugar. If it's going directly into electricity then you'd only need water if the solar panel was itself organic and needed to be kept moist, or for cooling or something...
Short answer: a solar panel based on a chlorophyll-like system is not a plant. - BootsyGraham, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2Sounds like flubber.
- theskillwithin, on 05/06/2009, -2/+4this is overly optimistic.
the energy from plants with high chlorophyll is miniscule, thats why they grow slowly.
bacteria use this energy for extremely small mechanical movements. - fooljoe, on 05/08/2009, -0/+2hey, if producing energy via these *magical* bacteria is such perfect solution then why can't I go out and buy some cultures for my roof to power my house? yes, there are difficulties with manufacture PV panels, but obviously the difficulties with these bacteria are much greater.
and if PV is too complicated for you, how hard is it to build a solar thermal installation. you basically just need a lot of undesirable land and a bunch of mirrors.
I'm not saying the solutions we have now are perfect, or that we shouldn't always strive for improvement; but the solutions we have now work and they work well, and it's ridiculous that we devote more resources to research than production of what works. - Nebarik, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2doesn't-matter FTW
- plasman, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2welcome to the world of scientific research...im sure they got a huge grant for this ***** also
- Jpatano, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2You may want to start by investing in a caps lock key.... start small.
- Jpatano, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2"and we need to be doing a lot of this NOW instead of wasting time and money on silly experiments like this."
LOL.....
Those silly experiments are called research. Photovoltaic cells were once silly experiments. Put all your eggs in one basket much ? Why should we only explore one avenue of solar power ? maybe in 10 years chloro power will be more efficient, and cheaper than today's solar panels. - inactive, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2Yeah, lets build artificial photosynthetic machines. But they won't produce electricity. They will produce sugar (glucose). I am sure the brow beating liberals will love that.
- Jpatano, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2whassamatter ?
- askantik, on 05/06/2009, -0/+2Hey bud, photovoltaic cells require materials to be mined, people to put them together, and waste to be created. Bacteria produce virtually infinitely and endlessly, need very little resources (and none of them precious or hard to get) in order to grow--- and plants have been making energy from light for 3 billion years.
- morpheus69, on 05/06/2009, -1/+3I'm getting pretty tired of these "could someday solve all our problems" articles. I love science and engineering and I know basic research is vital and these things take time...but we need real solutions NOW!
- bkurilko, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2Agreed! I don't see why we're not pouring money into solar farms, just to get them started. We could put them in orbit, in the deserts, floating on the oceans, etc. Just upgrade the panels over time as the technology advances.
- Kyan, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2Or as my sister would say "Neat-O, mosquit-O".
- zagoma, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1NICE READ
- sonicEd, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2Neat.
- immatellyouwhat, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2Antimatter FTW
- center311, on 05/06/2009, -0/+1imagine if you had some big ass tubes..Decorate your house with bacteria tubes yo!!!
- askantik, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2And what project are you working on?
- CarlT, on 07/26/2009, -0/+1An energy source i had never heard about before, its nice to think that one day it could happen, however it is a long way off. We really need to be concentrating on getting our more realistic green energy sources up and running first.
http://www.uwpays.com - Jpatano, on 05/06/2009, -1/+2really ? we need solutions, like.... RIGHT now ?
one breakthrough opens new possibilities. you can't invent the engine until you've invented the manufacturing means to produce one... you accept that things take time, but in the same sentence you're demanding they take less time ? ........mmmkay. - morpheus69, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1I've just quit my job in the IT industry and taken a job at a green tech company... what are you working on?
- morpheus69, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1I'm expressing frustration. It's a human emotion.
- fooljoe, on 05/06/2009, -3/+2chlorophyll-based photosynthesis is quite inefficient. i think we can do much better with standard photovoltaic panels, and better still with large solar thermal installations in the desert. and we need to be doing a lot of this NOW instead of wasting time and money on silly experiments like this.
- kcap122, on 05/06/2009, -5/+3How is this better than using plants to produce ethanol?
- Corneileus, on 05/06/2009, -11/+3IF I HAD MONEY TO INVEST IN THIS, I WOULD.
*****.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is