h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think I may have found the curve.
Y'know, the one I speculated needs to be found
so that solar energy can do the heavy lifting
in the way that curved wings lift jumbo jets.

Imagine a collector system based on the way tree leaves
absorb sunlight and then run the energy through something
like this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23050-light-hits-near-infinite-speed-in-silvercoated-glass.html

It might just fly.


~jwf~

Everybody who is inexpert in the area thinks photosynthesis is somehow the pinnacle of efficiency in extracting energy from stellar light. I include myself in that as I thought this too prior to attending a conference in solar energy technology last year.

Photosynthesis is actually rather abysmal at collecting solar energy - only about 5% efficient.
http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=1021

We manage (a lot) better than that artificially - the best ceramic photovoltaic cells manage about 40% iirc.

I refer you to Hoo's comment on the other thread regarding the actual energies involved (such figures needed to come from engineers in the know) to put more succinctly - if more brutally () what I've been trying to say.

I've no idea what that New Scientist article is talking about - it's all far too vague for me to be of any use I'm afraid.


I like your style though - sadly some of us have minds that are probably too highly trained

Thanks for understanding my good intention.
And for clearing up the question of photosynthesis.

I had never heard of anyone exploring that possibility
and was wondering why. Nature usually does better.

My hope, and we all hope, was that something as
obvious as a 'natural' solution might have been
overlooked. Sometimes the answer is sitting right
in front of us, like the curved wings that keep
seagulls soaring.

Very glad to know you recognise the 'too highly
trained' conundrum that infects all manner of
occupations and blocks creative thinking.

Innovation always seems to come out of the blue.

Let's hope that in solving the solar conversion
problem someone has a eureka moment soon.


~jwf~

PS:

Solar energy is of course converted via photosynthesis
into plant material, such as the wood of trees. This
wood (even old wood that has turned to coal) can be
burned to create steam and the steam used to turn
mechanical devices that spin electromagnets and
produce electric current.

It just makes me wonder if there is some way to
intercept those conversions at the source and
plug directly into photosynthesis before it
becomes a tree.


~jwf~

Oh absolutely - in the end of course we do - coal and oil are ultimately derived from photosynthesis.

Natural selection does not necessarily find an optimum - it just has to be good enough for the genes to survive - anything beyond that is superfluous.

It may be a bad thing for nature to harness energy too efficiently - many reactions in life generate heat and heat dissipation so as not to destroy the delicate organic molecules that make up life is a serious problem for all sorts of organisms. Capturing *all* the energy from the Sun would only add to that really.
Nature tends to be Goldilocks stuff - not too much, not too little - juuust right

Just noticed your new moniker.

I'm thinking we've lost the researcher formerly known as RedPeckham?

*hoping I'm not right*

I see you found the eulogy thread on my homepage.


I've been thinking a bit more about photosynthesis.
Specifically taking my own advice to expand my thinking
beyond the normal ideas and concepts I carry around.

In the case of photosynthesis I'd always just think of
the huge mature leaves on Canadian maple trees. That's
because a teacher used a big red maple leaf in class
when she 'explained it all' to my grade four class.

But now I'm thinking of desert cacti and algae blooms
and your comment about nature being inclined to go for
the happy medium, the path of least resistance. In the
big broad leafed trees, with so many collector leaves,
the efficiency rate would be relatively low.

And this got me wondering if Science has made up its
mind about photosynthetic efficiencies without looking
at all the possible variations in the plant whirled.

I note for example that a giant desert cactus has no
leaves of any kind, conifers have needles and algae
just sort of spread like mold or bacteria. I expect
that every plant has a different conversion capacity.

I now hope there is some sort of jungle plant somewhere
that has learned how to live successfully in deep shade
by having some super high efficiency method that may be
worthy of further study.


~jwf~