Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:39:02 UTC No. 16249395

>Photovoltaics
did you mean Photoamptics ?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:42:51 UTC No. 16249402

>>16249395
No, that's not a thing

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:43:21 UTC No. 16249404

>>16249393
Efficient for what goal retard? Reducing CO2? Generating electricity? Decorating a house? Employing STEM-cells?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:47:38 UTC No. 16249409

>>16249393
PV if you ignore EROI, probably plants if you take into account the EROI. At least for now, "superplants" are a possibility in the near future.
Always talking about the "raw stored energy", plants are terribly inefficient if you need a liquid fuel as final product (bioetanol, biodiesel, oils, distilled resins)

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:48:13 UTC No. 16249410

>>16249404
the two measurements should: photon absorption and rate of conversion to usable energy
This is the proper way to tell which is more efficient

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:49:11 UTC No. 16249411

>>16249409
gross converted energy*

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:00:28 UTC No. 16249433

>>16249393
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
In actuality, however, plants do not absorb all incoming sunlight (due to reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels) and do not convert all harvested energy into biomass, which results in a maximum overall photosynthetic efficiency of 3 to 6% of total solar radiation.[1]

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:12:32 UTC No. 16249459

>>16249409
>EROI
Chudcel alert

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:20:04 UTC No. 16249476

>>16249393
Photovoltaics and it's not even close. The reason being that the plant has other constraints to account for, such as water, temperature, osmosis, other cellular processes, etc. which reduce its efficiency.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 17:54:53 UTC No. 16249525

>>16249395
You mean photoinduction?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:03:18 UTC No. 16249535

Photosynthesis. It has a 99% efficiency rate after photons hit the chlorophyll, meanwhile solar panels are around 10%-20%.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:43:47 UTC No. 16249633

>>16249535
Source?

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 18:54:19 UTC No. 16249657

>>16249633
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/photosynthesis-100-efficient-quantum-physics/

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 19:52:09 UTC No. 16249765

>>16249535
quantum efficiency =/= energy conversion efficiency.
Semiconductors are ~100% QE for a limited bandwidth

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 19:58:47 UTC No. 16249782

>>16249657
Wow, it's fucking nothing!

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Jun 2024 21:15:53 UTC No. 16249889

>>16249395
silly post but the photons are creating a voltage difference in the semiconductors and thereby producing a current.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:17:11 UTC No. 16251574

>>16249393
If judged by price, photosynthesis is much better. You can get plant seeds for free or just a couple of cents, and the plant does the rest for free

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:46:43 UTC No. 16251621

It's a retarded question as plants self replicate out of basically dirt and air and biodegrade into dirt and air. You literally can't invent a more perfect convertor of solar power to packets of energy. You just can't. You can't out invent nature you hubris licking cunt.

There is nothing more elegant and well designed than God himself has made. All of science and invention is just man trying and failing to imitate God's inventions.

For all the achievements of man I see only folly, failure to create a dragon fly let alone a better dragon fly. Failure to surpass the might green leaf in it's power to make sun into energy. All the effort of billions of humans and the solar panels are a fraction as efficient, made by strip mining the crust for minerals(inefficient) and then dumped to toxic waste when expired(inefficient).

So we have an inefficient device that is made in a very inefficient way and it's disposable after the fact is equally inefficient.

PS, all the above holds true for carbon sequestration. No device you build will rival a tree in this regard, it just won't You can't build huge facilities out of steel and concrete(which makes C02) and think it can out compete a fucking tree. Worst case you bio engineer the tree to be more efficient or grow faster. That's all you need to do. But you can't make money off that and once the GMO tree seeds got out they could be propagated across the globe for the cost of shipping. Instead they want to build huge facilities run by mega corps that charge you money every month to "suck the carbon out of the air".

Anyone claiming anything is more efficient than nature is lying to you.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Jun 2024 21:51:03 UTC No. 16251636

>>16251621
what's nature's answer to making plutonium then, seems at least in earth conditions humans managed to do it better