Scientists have found a way to extract energy from photosynthesis | DW News

[@emil4580]

1:30 - Plants do not absorb 100% of visible light. Their leaves would be dark if they did. Rather, the leaves scatter mostly green wavelenths, giving them their green colour.

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

Wikipedia, Photosynthetic Efficiency: "100% sunlight → non-bioavailable photons waste is 47%, leaving 53% (in the 400-700 nm range) → 30% of photons are lost due to incomplete absorption, leaving 37% (absorbed photon energy) → 24% is lost due to wavelength-mismatch degradation to 700 nm energy, leaving 28.2% (sunlight energy collected by chlorophyll) → 68% is lost in conversion of ATP and NADPH to d-glucose, leaving 9% (collected as sugar) → 35-40% of sugar is recycled/consumed by the leaf in dark and photo-respiration, leaving 5.4% net leaf efficiency."

[@ВалентинаКашевская-д2ц]

GAS OIL COAL - ITS A BILANCE OF THE PLANET ....(USED THIS ....FOR THIS ORBIT OF EARTH CHANGE

[@FlyingPastilla]

@@anderslvolljohansen1556 If I understand correctly, this tech would collect electrons before it enters the cycle to produce ATP glucose or anything else so you'd mainly go from 28%. Besides, if there is money to be made through it, who's to say they don't produce some GMO super-chlorophyll to capture and exploit more photons upstream, boosting the efficiency of the reaction ?

[@casecoffea]

DW - please always link to the source of their research for those interested.

[@casecoffea]

Here is a (chat GPT 3.5) summary of the article: The article explores the dynamics of energy transfer in photosynthesis on a very short timescale (picoseconds). The researchers used advanced techniques such as two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy (2DES) and ultrafast transient absorption spectroscopy to investigate the energy transfer pathways between different pigments in photosynthetic complexes. The research found that the energy transfer dynamics in photosynthesis are more complex than previously thought, with multiple competing pathways and intermediate states. In particular, the researchers observed that the energy transfer between pigments can be rewired on a picosecond timescale in response to changes in environmental conditions such as temperature and light intensity. The study also found that certain pigments play a key role in regulating the flow of energy through the photosynthetic complexes. In particular, carotenoids were found to act as a "safety valve" by dissipating excess energy and protecting the plant from oxidative damage.

[@9UaYXxB]

I found the explanation of how this process occurs (and could be exploited) extremely nebulous. Consequently I'm skeptical, ... I'd need to hear this explained in a more detailed and lucid way, at least by drawing parallels/analogies to flesh it out.

[@lifetech4146]

​@@caspar9794 while hold on!! Even I didn't understand how this works. What are the watts of energy produced for a day, how efficient it is, no data available. Plus many unscientific terms in the above video, which I have rarely seen in DW news

[@jollyjokress3852]

The tech is in the beginnings.

[@Xaphedo]

I was also quite confused, but I found an article titled "Photosynthesis 'hack' could lead to new ways of generating renewable energy" in Science Daily that I think explains this much better. The way I now understand it, thanks to this very advanced imaging of the photosynthetic process the researchers figured out that some electrons are escaping the reaction, making it "leaky" and, at least in theory, something you could capture electricity (i.e. the electrons) from. It sounds very cool, although a long way away from practical applications. Also I have no idea why they had to make it so vague in the video, it's a relatively straight-forward concept

[@nicholasc.5944]

ok mr SWEDE MCNEBULOUS wheres your great idea then, show us your invention, whats your plan for clean energy, go on im listening

[@pioneer_1148]

They got at least one thing wrong. Plants do not absorb 100% of sunlight, the reason they are green is that they absorb the red and blue parts of the spectrum and reflect the green part.

[@JavenarchX]

"Why haven't learnt to replicate photosynthesis" was my question to my highschool teacher 28 years ago. I should have gone on to research this

[@heater5979]

Indeed, I too had that question in mind as a young lad many decades ago. In my research I only got as far as the drinking beer stage this chap started from!

[@wiczus6102]

But we can replicate photosynthesis. You have to be more specific on what you want to achieve. If you want to get electricity out of it, then it's not really an issue of replication but rather transmission of energy.

[@joshuaa9513]

The problem isn't that you could not. It is just easier to break water or carbon dioxide into what you want with electricity. If you take a battery and put to wires on it then place the other end of the wires in a glass of water. You will see bubbles coming off the wires. One side is making oxygen the other hydrogen.

[@heater5979]

@@joshuaa9513 Brilliant. Yes we all did that simple experiment in school. At least when I was there 50 years ago. Please tell me how that is anything to do with generating electricity from sunlight via photosynthesis.

[@joshuaa9513]

@@heater5979 I thought the message was about artificial photosynthesis. In regards to oxygen production. I suppose you could take a green colored photosynthetic tripolymer and trap it between layers of some transparent transdermal material and ground it. Than expose it to EMF fields (visible light) while running electricity from positive to negative and alternating back and forth between polarities through small closed locked circuits in order to break the molecular bonds of carbon dioxide. For the purpose of producing a sugar you store someplace.

[@Electropretzel]

If plants absorb 100% of the light you wouldn't see them green would you? Plants (leaves) absorb around 85% of the visible light at best.

[@DarkAngelEU]

Leaves are slightly transparent, so maybe the greens you see are actually green wavelengths passing through the leaf instead of being reflected back?

[@jacquescousteau4592]

@@DarkAngelEU No, and also that would basically be the same thing, still light not being absorbed.

[@anthonyanth8368]

Lol wa thinking the same thing

[@DarkAngelEU]

@@jacquescousteau4592 Then I guess what they meant, was that 100% of the absorbed light results in electricity with plants, while solar panels only produce electricity with 67% of light that they absorb? In physics this is called efficiency, right? So the efficiency rate of leaves would be 1 and that of solar panels would be 0.67

[@Psi-Storm]

100% absorption doesn't mean that a big amount of that photon energy will be used for photosynthesis. Some will be converted to heat or send back out as new light.

[@galaxysmartphone187]

What an amazing discovery , 🎉Congratulations to the Scientists who have achieved this

[@midishh]

Scientist walk into a bar...and they conceptualize a new method to extract energy 😊 nice!

[@raclark2730]

A think drink.

[@phil20_20]

Then they went back to the bar again, this time with a TV journalist in tow.🎉

[@truthboom]

more like they walk into a garden

[@novemberalpha6023]

​@@raclark2730 better than food for thought, no?? 😅

[@novemberalpha6023]

Two scientists walked into a bar and an idea came out.

[@8bitninja64]

Please put this into the public domain before some large corporations buy it and hide it away, never to be seen again.

[@nomoresunforever3695]

That's not real. It feels like other imventions haven't been used because these science media stories are always overly simplified and sound way too positive when this is just very, very, very early research that may or may not pan out.

[@rx58000]

When you study political science instead of science

[@C.Zacarias-Main]

Great research!! The application of Flora Photosynthesis in powering electronic devices could produce renewable clean energy. Imagine very cheap Solar Panel arrays that absorb 100% of photon light energy.

[@am2fearful2sleep]

I expect ExxonMobil will purchase this patent and suppress the idea from going further. The oil company has to keep the investors happy.

[@Nyocurio]

The researcher was sincere enough to admit that their electricity harvesting method will never even reach the efficiency of silicone photovoltaic tech; and those are already inefficient enough that they have to use up enormous areas to deliver a decent power output. This might power a smart weather station somewhere far away from civilization, but I really doubt it'll power anyone's home any time soon.

[@C.Zacarias-Main]

@@Nyocurio I agree. Photovoltaic Solar Panels have reached their maximum. We need a new architecture for Solar Panels. It will take some time to further develop this technology.

[@user-iz3gv5vo6b]

Let's hope that this process can be developed successfully.

[@jacquescousteau4592]

Some of the explanations in this are incorrect. While the plants' photosynthetic organelles, the chloroplasts, can convert almost 100% of the light they absorb, the plant doesn't use 100% of visible light. Especially green light is not used in photosynthesis and is reflected, and because of that most photosynthetic plants are green.

[@solconcordia4315]

Absolutely, efficiency is computed from a fraction which denominator is often manipulated to "look good." The idea of tapping into the electron transfer chain has been around for a very long time, nothing new.

[@C0Y0TE5]

That is the problem with media: they just fudge it....

[@kevinmithnick9993]

I heard they use mostly infrared light and that's why are all of them mostly green

[@solconcordia4315]

@@kevinmithnick9993 Different plants have different absorption spectra in the visible light frequencies. Many plants have pigments which absorb the photon frequencies towards the reddish end of the spectrum as well as those towards the bluish end of the spectrum. Human eyes have pigments excitable by principally red, green, and blue frequencies photons so after the reddish and bluish ones have been absorbed, humans see green. Colors *differ* from photon frequencies which are directly proportional to photon energies via E=hf where E=photon energy, h=Planck's Constant, and f=photon frequency. The color purple thus differs from violet light. Colors are produced by our *minds* depending upon the mixture of the photonic detectors excited by the electromagnetic radiation. Colors are thus "in the eyes and minds of the beholder." Photon frequencies are a very physical property, instead of an emergent sensation. Some other animals probably see a lot more colors than humans do because we had probably lost photon detectors of a certain type during evolution. Bees, for example, retained their ability to see ultraviolet light frequencies for a good reason because they can't be as color blind as humans since their myopic compound eyes have to stare up close at the centerfolds of 🌺 plants' Playboy(R) magazines before deciding to suck nectar or move on. Birds can also see ultraviolet photon frequencies so teaching adolescents about the "birds and bees" has a very sound biophysical basis. There is an unseen-to-human-eyes world in ultraviolet light out there but humans may mistaken it as the purple 💜 world.

[@playerformerlyknownasmousecop]

Why report on this at such an early stage of research? There's no indication that it even has a positive EROI..

[@raclark2730]

No you just want to be pessimistic as a hobby. Everything has to start from some were.

[@1ACL]

It's a very interesting concept and beginning. Everything starts from somewhere and its necessary to talk and share ideas.

[@raclark2730]

@@1ACL Absolutely people have been pummeled with so much doom and gloom they cannot see a good thing when it starts.

[@playerformerlyknownasmousecop]

@@raclark2730 You’re probably right. I don’t want to be pessimistic but after researching energy studies for nearly 5 years I have become cynical. There are new technologies that are farther ahead that don’t get this sort of publicity.

[@playerformerlyknownasmousecop]

@@raclark2730 I’m an actual researcher though. To the layman this sounds great but to the initiated it’s just another flavor of the week. I’ll wait until it’s farther along to get excited.

[@sassa82]

The reason plants are green is that they dont use the green part of the light spectrum since its too much energy that will damage the plant. How can you say that photosynthesis uses 100% of visible light?

[@rippspeck]

No offence to DW, but news media kinda sucks at science communication.

[@ΤζονΤζέι]

One of the reasons for delaying transition to electric economy.

[@caskaptein9889]

Can we get a source of the literature in description please?

[@NaprostoRetardovany]

I am quite sceptical about the reporting of it. As is my understanding of photosynthesis it is actually not that efficient, because it doesn't need to be. There is mostly plenty of light available, so evolution made good enough. Base on what he said and based on University of Cambridge article about it, they just want to "steal" the extra energy that is created but not used during the plant grow. Which is cool and all, but this is really really really far from actual aplication. The computer as they mention is very simple devices that could be powered by potato battery, we are not talking about PC here and it required a lot of care to keep the source of it alive. What I am saying is: this is like talking about nuclear fission in the 30s, it looks possible, but there is a long way to go.

[@GameplayTubeYT]

We should fund this it's best alternative to solar panels it's organic unlike solar panels they become dump when they old!

[@dotsdot5608]

as it so happens, listening to this while watering my plants! 👁️👄👁️ 🪴

[@raclark2730]

Bless you, there wise those plants.

[@EmptyCrystal]

Awesome! Also: Lasers are amazing scientific instruments

[@solidorsharp3091]

Perspective & Insights - brilliant.

[@Miamcoline]

What an incredible discovery! I thought we were 20-30 years from something like this!

[@Gurci28]

During photosynthesis, plants open tiny pores on their leaf surfaces to suck carbon dioxide from the air and produce their own food. A chemical process that occurs in plants, algae, and some types of bacteria, when they are exposed to sunlight. During photosynthesis, water and carbon dioxide combine to form carbohydrates (sugars) and give off oxygen. 0:49 [LBL; NCI]

[@aidanking9070]

Plants do not absorb the full visible spectrum.. that's why they're green

[@stefanbeuningenvan5684]

Looks quite similar to the technology by Plant-e/ Living Light that harvests power from plants by so called microbial fuel cell (also research of the 'mud battery' is probably similar to this). Was presented in a paper in 2012, but making panels out of it is a very interesting thought.

[@Gurci28]

Photosynthesis and respiration are reactions that complement each other in the environment. They are in reality the same reactions but occurring in reverse. While in photosynthesis carbon dioxide and water yield glucose and oxygen, through the respiration process glucose and oxygen yield carbon dioxide and water. The products of one process are the reactants of the other. Notice that the equation for cellular respiration is the direct opposite of photosynthesis: Cellular Respiration: C6H12O6 + 6O2 → 6CO2 + 6H2O. Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6+ 6O. [CK-12; Diffen] 0:16

[@matthewbaynham6286]

If they can get the energy out of the glucose that is formed then that would be a major win. Because it's not just the amount of energy hat is important it's when the energy is available. So solar panels that create glucose that is stored and used later is fantastic.

[@piyh3962]

Is this not biofuel with extra steps? Biofuel isn't carbon negative when you factor in all the processing.

[@sandradixon6205]

Photosynthesis is truly a marvel of creation. It’s sad that so many people take it for granted and don’t give credit to our Creator for this amazing process. Humans are very quick to take the credit for their “discoveries”, especially if they can design something by imitating what they find. All they’re really doing is copying what our Creator originally designed and made. I find it totally illogical that it takes intelligent humans to design and make a copy, but they say the original, incredible design just evolved instead of acknowledging that a superior, intelligent Being created it. Wherever you look in the universe and on our earth, there is irrefutable evidence of a Creator. As Revelation 4:11 says: “You are worthy, our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

Wikipedia, Photosynthetic efficiency: "100% sunlight → non-bioavailable photons waste is 47%, leaving 53% (in the 400-700 nm range) → 30% of photons are lost due to incomplete absorption, leaving 37% (absorbed photon energy) → 24% is lost due to wavelength-mismatch degradation to 700 nm energy, leaving 28.2% (sunlight energy collected by chlorophyll) → 68% is lost in conversion of ATP and NADPH to d-glucose, leaving 9% (collected as sugar) → 35-40% of sugar is recycled/consumed by the leaf in dark and photo-respiration, leaving 5.4% net leaf efficiency."

[@AD-zo5vp]

Would be nice to have the link to the publication in the comments!!! Thx 😊

[@Lords1997]

We need this now; more funding and expectations to create state funded projects to build these energy hubs within a decade.

[@gregorymoilwa569]

I would love to read the research paper on this❤

[@EmM-ko7mu]

1:31 yeah no plants absorb about 85% of incident light between 400 and 700 nm not 100% if you get that basic fact wrong what else is made up in this video

[@User9681e]

Source : drunk mit student

[@sassa82]

I stopped watching at that moment. its so bad its not worth watching.

[@craigkdillon]

It all started in bar and beers. Surprisingly candid. I like him.

[@neilclark8087]

before I turn my only hemp plant into energy via photo sythesis I still prefer the traditional path of ultilisation

[@bryaneberly3588]

cordage from the leaves? nice.

[@juliane__]

1:28 What kind of computer? Maybe a tablet? or a small light laptop? Or did they just the math and proclaimed, the energy did this, but meant it CAN do this? 100% aborption compared to solar panals 67%. Dreams maybe come true, but not here. This is just disappointing journalism.

[@harukrentz435]

Do we need to wait another 20 years for this too?

[@donaldmcronald2331]

That's great to hear. Let's hope it will prove viable and accessable.

[@heavyhookedup]

Lasers are just amazing. Also assisted with research into fusion not long ago. Very cool. Congrats.

[@digiryde]

Yes, but do they come with sharks?

[@cancerino666]

The fact it requires water seems to be a big issue. Only if it works with salt water. Drinkable water is becoming a scarse resource

[@rippspeck]

Oh no, life on Earth requires water. Shocking revelation!

[@arefkr]

It might become possible with some genetic modifications.

[@raclark2730]

Everything requires water you dolt.

[@nkululekomolokomme5132]

Hey... I had something similar to this😮. Really sucks not having infrastructure and aid for such explorations.

[@belwabahadurpuragriculture3537]

Congratulation Mr. Bekei you people are our hope for clean energy and the environment, Love from India.

[@dzezonja3558]

Since when is solar panel efficiency 67%? Last time I heard was around 20 something % and are barely starting to get into the 30%+ with the latest prototypes.

[@AlexanderHL1919]

Its 20% of 67%. PVs aint all that.

[@karantan19]

We are talking about how much visible light can we capture. And efficiency of transferting light to el. is around 20 %.

[@chaossynergy9768]

Fraunhofer ISE has developed a solar cell with 47.6 Percent Efficiency, however the mass produced panels in public use are around 20-25% as of 2023.

[@AlexanderHL1919]

@@chaossynergy9768 PVs are only a good idea on top of existing infrastructure like rooftops as they're not causing additional damage, and in remote areas, but not as a main supply source. The destruction of habitat is unconscionable. Even if their efficiency in absorbing light was 100%, unless we can "dial up" the sun, the only way to scale power generation is by surface area i.e more land clearings, deforestation and habitat destruction. They are not the solution they're made out to be.

[@Psi-Storm]

@@AlexanderHL1919 77% of all farmland is used for animal feed, while lifestock products only deliver 18% of total calories humans consume. If you want sustainable land use, we have to half our animal product consumption. PV is the most efficient land use for energy production we have. It produces 40 times more energy per area than growing plants for biofuels/biogas. Monoculture and fertilizers are slowly killing our farmland. Land that gets used for PV for 10 or 20 years, would significantly improve in quality getting the recovery time from farming.

[@basimbedan5165]

great discovery

[@sandradixon6205]

Photosynthesis is truly a marvel of creation. It’s sad that so many people take it for granted and don’t give credit to our Creator for this amazing process. Humans are very quick to take the credit for their “discoveries”, especially if they can design something by imitating what they find. All they’re really doing is copying what our Creator originally designed and made. I find it totally illogical that it takes intelligent humans to design and make a copy, but they say the original, incredible design just evolved instead of acknowledging that a superior, intelligent Being created it. Wherever you look in the universe and on our earth, there is irrefutable evidence of a Creator. As Revelation 4:11 says: “You are worthy, our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

[@dariusdareme]

1:36 Not sure what panels absorb 67%. I know good ones convert 27% to electrical energy. NASA space ones are better, but cost millions. If it's just visible light, then that is not that much.

[@FlyingPastilla]

If this works and becomes an inexpensive as solar panels are today, this would be huge.

[@mq_fpv]

Cool. But somehow I'm worried by the appearance of the plant at the window of the researcher's room.

[@TheRaeffel]

🤣 best comment

[@icecreamgecko]

I thought the same thing... but then again, I would be suspicious if it looked unnaturally healthy. Those little homegrown avocado trees do not fare well here in Europe. Mine looks similar. 😭

[@Neonrena]

Awesome news!

[@nikolasao]

This is great. I hope that unlike medicines and other technologies doesn't just create more billions for the private sector. I hope that the development, all the work that the scientists do and the resources that the government pours into research gets to be used for the good on humanity.

[@jollyjokress3852]

Not only for humans, there is other life too. Exploit plants and you only want to use it for humans I reckon. *specio-centrism sucks*

[@GamePlaySStuff]

Believe it or not, it being privatized makes it cheaper for everyone. Competition is great for the development of products and technologies.

[@blaircox1589]

Really tired of these reports. For over 40 years I've heard these from the science community. Problem is the majority simply are not commercially viable. They cost too much and/or cannot be scaled up. So while a neat benchtop experiment, that's where they stay. The business is in grant money to keep these folks going.

[@arefkr]

Picture a passenger plane that, instead of a fuel tank, has a rooftop garden 😄

[@Axeiaa]

Good luck with that during night time ;). If this technique is cheap enough to produce on a large scale then it can be used to generate hydrogen, the problem with it has always been that it takes too much energy to produce it. Planes using Hydrogen would be pretty nice.

[@cheecharron1244]

😅🤣😂🤣 what a great idea! Maybe put the smoking area up there as well?

[@arefkr]

@@cheecharron1244 And a wine bar

[@HelenThornton-y8d]

What an amazing discovery , Congratulations to the Scientists who have achieved this

[@zlonewolf]

Extracting energy from photosynthesis still require sunlight and will be less efficient than solar panels. The only upside to this is since its organic photocells then it will be less harmful. However scaling it would be a problem. It wont be effective for residential use & limited in capacity.

[@aakopyana]

Where is the research???

[@stokepusher5481]

Thats the cleanest 'Power Plant' I've learned of anyway, talk about green energy! (but on a more serious note; wow, thank 'goodness' for this).

[@SA-ks9vz]

I'd like to know how much power the laser uses vs how much power is outputted.

[@2000sborton]

The laser was just used to discover the process. Now that they know how it works there is no more need for the laser.

[@majnuker]

@@2000sborton Yes, exactly. It's irrelevant; it's not the same problem as fusion where you need to repeatedly laser materials.

[@roboldx9171]

This is the game-changing discovery the world has been waiting for. Taking carbon out of the atmosphere is cool they also need to find a way to get the waste product to be o2.

[@sandradixon6205]

Photosynthesis is truly a marvel of creation. It’s sad that so many people take it for granted and don’t give credit to our Creator for this amazing process. Humans are very quick to take the credit for their “discoveries”, especially if they can design something by imitating what they find. All they’re really doing is copying what our Creator originally designed and made. I find it totally illogical that it takes intelligent humans to design and make a copy, but they say the original, incredible design just evolved instead of acknowledging that a superior, intelligent Being created it. Wherever you look in the universe and on our earth, there is irrefutable evidence of a Creator. As Revelation 4:11 says: “You are worthy, our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

[@majnuker]

The biggest news with this is that plants are natural carbon sinks. We could counteract climate change using this on a wide enough scale. You wouldn't have the 'rebreather' problem of forests that burn down releasing their carbon or seasonal cycles causing the carbon level to oscillate. You can just sequester carbon on an industrial scale indefinitely.

[@Strong-h7x]

Is there any detail study material on Google

[@fzakrzewski]

The question they did not answer is - how would long term plant react to sucking out of this "excess" energy, and what were plant doing with it?

[@majnuker]

Like it says in the video, plants use that excess energy to grow, move, and transport nutrients among other things. These processes would be slowed down...however, if we use a plant that is much better (say super broad leaves on a small body) and uses less energy, it'd have less impact. I also believe that the application of the technology would be more akin to using the cells themselves in a kind of synthetic design, rather than actual plants. My biggest question is on maintanence and scalability. If you build the panels with these energy gathering bio components, how long are they good for? Years? Decades? Indefinitely if they're sealed and don't develop cancer? Or maybe we just look at the biological process itself and use molecular transport to move the electrons from one place to another; after all, that's what the plant cells are doing: there are molecules that facillitate the transfer and maybe that's all we need. Very interesting tho. Could have some weird applications for sure. But it won't be too groundbreaking; even at 100 percent efficiency you need a certain amount of power to drive a car, for example, and the panel footprint can only be so big. This is a limiting factor to where it could potentially be implemented. For comparison, the charge of a computer for 6 months is neat, but I doubt they were powering a desktop gaming PC at 750 watts. It's more likely something very simple/small with only a dinner plate size panel, such as a calculator or something, that they did in order to get the headline to help chase funding and get some exciting press.

[@pqrstzxerty1296]

This still be tax under Ulez, as its not green enough.

[@jamesraymond1158]

Very confusing. Are they saying that the energetic electron they capture provides more energy than the laser energy used to capture the electron?

[@astoni314]

Knowledge to some, is power. A little more detail would remove April 1st proximity suspicion, or stop people trying wiring light circuits back to high energy cacti.

[@majnuker]

No, the laser was used to discover the process that happens naturally using molecular transports in the plant cells. Next step would be isolating it and seeing if you could then funnel those electrons to electrodes. You won't need a laser, just sunlight, to get the electron flow started. I think the hard bit is how it'd be implemented, like a bio-sheet for the panel, or just a molecular array (like we do with lithium batteries) that transfers electrons from the surface to the electrodes. Perhaps we could just 'plug into' plants somehow, and put the pots/panels or whatever on roofs etc. But I think that's not likely to be possible. The biggest news with this is that plants are natural carbon sinks. We could counteract climate change using this on a wide enough scale. You wouldn't have the 'rebreather' problem of forests that burn down releasing their carbon or seasonal cycles causing the carbon level to oscillate. You can just sequester carbon on an industrial scale indefinitely.

[@jamesraymond1158]

@@majnuker When I was a grad student in the early 1970s, our lab was looking at the first step in photosynthesis in photosynthetic bacteria using EPR (electron paramagnetic resonance).. What did these Cambridge guys learn that wasn't known 50 years ago?

[@majnuker]

@@jamesraymond1158 Don't know, but perhaps they didn't have access to the laser tech needed to find the underlying mechanisms for the reaction?

[@USAWal]

Is it able to cover our needs today? The thing is we need an alternative source of energy right now.

[@aenorist2431]

We have those, its up to you to force politicians to use them.

[@CulinaryPhysics]

Plants have been doing it for years, and now we’re finally catching up! 🌱🔋

[@DavidCheok]

Years?

[@adoatero5129]

You seem to lead the reader of your comment to think that plants are more advanced than we are...

[@sandradixon6205]

Photosynthesis is truly a marvel of creation. It’s sad that so many people take it for granted and don’t give credit to our Creator for this amazing process. Humans are very quick to take the credit for their “discoveries”, especially if they can design something by imitating what they find. All they’re really doing is copying what our Creator originally designed and made. I find it totally illogical that it takes intelligent humans to design and make a copy, but they say the original, incredible design just evolved instead of acknowledging that a superior, intelligent Being created it. Wherever you look in the universe and on our earth, there is irrefutable evidence of a Creator. As Revelation 4:11 says: “You are worthy, our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

[@wsmith3849]

Everyone is so concerned about global warming but I never hear how planting more trees and such can scrub the atmosphere.

[@raclark2730]

They are trying to dismiss it as some projects have failed. They don't want solutions only fear

[@Psi-Storm]

The problem is that trees and plants return all the co2 when they die, or in case of trees, when they get burned. We have to stop burning stuff before planting trees has more than a neutral effect on carbon emissions.

[@ad_astra468]

It's good to ask, photosyntsis takes carbon dioxide, water and light to create glucose for the plant which will then feed on it and grow and oxygen as a byproduct, it basically strips the carbon from carbon dioxide and turns it into organic matter. The way this improves the situation is by lowering the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is the main cause of global warming given the fact that it absorbs more heat than oxygen and nitrogen hence why it's called a greenhouse gas. Hope this cleared things up for you.

[@pr0xytv942]

I like how wholesome this comment section is. Nice work scientist dude

[@elitedood12]

100% of light? why are they green? uh i think this isnt science....

[@eini9430]

Imagine every tree in the park, roadside, home etc having am outlet to charge consumer's EV bike, car, mobile, computer etc The greenest energy ever.

[@cz1589]

You can also use earth/mud energy batteries. Its solid science, no hocus-pocus. I considered it for a while, but you need a lot of time and space to make it work. In general, solar panels are better and easy - except earth batteries/energy work at night as well. Earth-energy seems interesting in rural area's. But its unknown and with cheap solar and batteries coming, it wont be very appealing. Too muddy ;-)

[@brucewayne000]

No matter if it's good news or bad news, this news anchor always seems to be happy. I wish I could have that in me, lol.

[@sukhkaur9440]

Then do some Yoga 👍

[@w.d.g.]

WONDERFUL.

[@augusthavince8909]

If we could make this so that people were in a race to "keep up with the Joneses" and to become self-sufficient, we could use human nature to help restabilize the climate temperature.

[@markschuette3770]

as soon as you mention the word "lazer" i knew there would be an energy loss and not an energy gain.

[@waynelabel1049]

If they could extract thoughts from republicans that would be a real miracle.

[@daveo98765]

Made my day!!

[@will0rosenbergova]

Lol

[@northernseeker1822]

Maybe more advanced solar power panels and more intense biofuels in future.

[@bakenumber4]

Exciting stuff..smart guy job well done.

[@sandradixon6205]

Photosynthesis is truly a marvel of creation. It’s sad that so many people take it for granted and don’t give credit to our Creator for this amazing process. Humans are very quick to take the credit for their “discoveries”, especially if they can design something by imitating what they find. All they’re really doing is copying what our Creator originally designed and made. I find it totally illogical that it takes intelligent humans to design and make a copy, but they say the original, incredible design just evolved instead of acknowledging that a superior, intelligent Being created it. Wherever you look in the universe and on our earth, there is irrefutable evidence of a Creator. As Revelation 4:11 says: “You are worthy, our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”

[@tmmquovarius891]

Hyped. It is still nature and nature has known how to use photosynthesis for billions of years.

[@Imasleepinaway25]

Let's go scientists, let's go!

[@smokeywilly4364]

An energy source that helps to revitalize our ozone, let’s get this implemented fast! For the sake of our economy and our environment.

[@majnuker]

Not our ozone, it could sink carbon. Ozone is a different molecule, and the ozone has already recovered from the damage it sustained in mid last century thanks to laws and regulations on certain types of chemicals.

[@ChinaLake100]

At 2:04 I think they meant to write Energy but instead wrote Electricity

[@mitchmomlc]

i love the enthusiasm

[@inspirationalspirituality2690]

😮 ❤ How am I just learning this? So cool!

[@sandro11235]

Plant’s don’t absorb 100% of the light from the visible spectrum (otherwise they wouldn’t be green). It’s that chlorophyll uses 100% of the light/energy that it *absorbs*

[@anderslvolljohansen1556]

Wikipedia, Photosynthetic Efficiency: "100% sunlight → non-bioavailable photons waste is 47%, leaving 53% (in the 400-700 nm range) → 30% of photons are lost due to incomplete absorption, leaving 37% (absorbed photon energy) → 24% is lost due to wavelength-mismatch degradation to 700 nm energy, leaving 28.2% (sunlight energy collected by chlorophyll) → 68% is lost in conversion of ATP and NADPH to d-glucose, leaving 9% (collected as sugar) → 35-40% of sugar is recycled/consumed by the leaf in dark and photo-respiration, leaving 5.4% net leaf efficiency."

[@MrFlexNC]

The percentage of light that plants absorb from the visible spectrum varies depending on the plant species and specific pigments present. On average, plants absorb approximately 45-50% of the sunlight in the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) range, which spans from 400 nm to 700 nm in the visible spectrum. The efficiency of plants at converting absorbed light into chemical energy (stored as carbohydrates) through photosynthesis is relatively low, usually around 3-6% for most crops. The theoretical maximum efficiency of photosynthesis, known as the quantum efficiency, is estimated to be around 8-10%. This is due to various factors, such as energy losses during light absorption, energy conversion steps in photosynthesis, and the fact that plants need to balance light harvesting with other metabolic processes and protection against damage from excess light. In comparison, modern solar panels have an efficiency ranging from 15% to over 20% for commercial panels, and experimental or laboratory-grade solar cells have achieved efficiencies above 40%. Solar panels convert sunlight directly into electricity, and their efficiency is measured by the proportion of incident sunlight that is converted into usable electrical energy. While solar panels have a higher efficiency in converting sunlight to usable energy than plants, it's important to note that the two systems serve different purposes. Plants convert sunlight into chemical energy to fuel their growth and reproduction, while solar panels generate electricity for human use.

[@wowJhil]

In other words, what he said, was misleading or? Genuinely curious because I think he didn't say much more then the good news, and didn't go deeper into the subject.

[@majnuker]

Yes all of this is true. But scaled to the same as modern solar panels, for a set amount of money which generates more electricity? Depending on how cheap they are to build and maintain, you could have two, five, ten, however many times MORE of them than solar panels, just over a wider area. AND the added bonus of capturing CO2 is phenomenal. We'd have a bigger footprint, but more power, potentially with less maintenance and reliance on things like silicon chips (which may become a geopolitical problem soon). I see it as a definite win for areas with more space that may want to sink carbon. Combine it with things that can clean air, and it'd be a fantastic bandaid for industrial areas.

[@majnuker]

I'll also add that depending on the method used (full plants vs cells vs molecules) it could also potentially provide habitats for local species, helping with biodiversity. But I have no idea how they plan to actually use the process.

[@barbarasmith6005]

Anything, anything, no matter how vaporwarish, to avoid reducing emissions.

[@avramprimack7373]

It won't take carbon out of the atmosphere unless it results in growing more plants. It will avoid emissions from other fuels that it replaces. That will be a benefit. It will have to work at very large scales to make a difference: iron smelting and concrete burning require lots of heat now obtained in the form of fossil carbon. Also fertilizer making. Running a small sink like a computer is inconsequential. Replacing industrial processes is more interesting.

[@thethirddimension8076]

Wow so a utopia world is actually now possible ❤❤❤❤🌍🌴🌱🌿

[@raclark2730]

Let us hope my friend, this could be it.

[@matthiasvanrhijn280]

No its not! It will take again years to develop further that technology and after that it will take decades to really implement it into the economy. We do not have that time anymore. The IPCC is warning that - if we do not transform our behaviour and consumption to half of carbon emission of today by 2030- we wont reach anymore the goal to limit the so important 1.5 degree maximum of global Warming by 2050! Since the Paris agreement a few years ago was greatly announced by Western societies to reduce their co2-emissions the same Western societies augmentened their carbon footprint per Person each year instead of immediately reduce it! If we as individuals and as a society are too lazy and therefore not willing to transform and reduce our consumption immediately wie wont make it! Technology is by far not enough advanced and does by far not advance fast enough to save us (even if the society celebrates each year New technological 'breaktroughs' on KZbin and in the Media since decades now). Still the situation worsens every year since decades now. Time. is. running. out. Blessings 💚🌹

[@1873Winchester]

lfmao

[@Nottherebutthere]

Better scale this up quick.

[@smashhead9728]

His smile is so nice

[@HL65536]

As usual, none of the really important questions were asked. Get help from experts to help distinguish real breakthroughs from irrelevant lab experiments. Here are some questions I would have asked: - What percentage of light is converted into electricity? (then compare it to current solar panels) - What maintenance is required over the course of 20 years runtime? - If you had to make a swimming pool sized installation tomorrow, what problems (if any) would stop you from doing that?

[@bullseyek]

Very cool. Just add water and light - but maybe not where or when it freezes.

[@mattbosley3531]

This story didn't say that they've found a way to do it. They're still working on a way to do it. They can create very small amounts of electricity only right now and not very efficiently.

[@redMaple_QC]

Ah, the bar. Site of so many fabulous ideas.

[@joelvanwinkle5976]

What an amazing discovery, this could be the very thing that makes solar explode.

[@nathancortes3722]

Why didn't you link to the original Nature article?

[@yeasp]

I don't agree to the point plants absorb 100% of sun light There exist no matter which is a perfect 100% absorber in this universe

[@shmielyehuda6788]

I am just coming across this. Was this your 4-1-2023 addition? Your April 1st addition?

[@ВалентинаКашевская-д2ц]

GAS OIL COAL - ITS A BILANCE OF THE PLANET ....(USED THIS ....FOR THIS ORBIT OF EARTH CHANGE

[@rustyscrapper]

Where do you think the energy in oil came from?

[@tomkelly8827]

Plants don't absorb 100% of the light from the sun and solar panels absorb 20% or so, not 67%. So this story is off by quite a bit, but I am interested in hearing more about their developments.

[@rnapol3266]

why did they edit what he was saying? and the explanation for how it works is lacking

[@JoeyBlogs007]

Haven't you ever heard of a BatTree ??? LOL

[@portentouslad5051]

I mean other then burning or eating the plants?