This is a great video, thanks for making it! The comparison is unfair though because the plants capture and store the energy, and the solar panels are only doing half of that job. It would be more fair to compare the plants to solar + battery storage. A lot of people in the comments are arguing a false dichotomy that we need to choose between solar or plants. There is a meme for this -- Why can't we have both?!
To follow up questions which I wish you had addressed: 1. Where do leaves beat solar? In the shade of course. So, could we combine a solar farm with a food production facility in the desert where we use some of the solar power to desalinate water to irrigate plants using reflected light that is no good for solar panels. 2. Could genetic engineering improve photosynthesis or even encourage plants to do something else with that flow of electrons that chlorophyll produces? Could they absorb pollutants and produce useful products?Perhaps for example they could crystallize sulfur in to it's 8 atom solid form from sulfur dioxide in the air...
Great video!! Love the comparison between leaves and solar panels! Amazing - straightforward but detailed, well scripted!! I also think it's great you have solar panels on your roof! :)R
Rachel Shannon Thanks Rachel! I'll let Brian (our robotic peregrin falcon who keeps seaguls away from the PV array) know you're a fan of his nest. - Ross
That 's the combination of nature with tech and result or product is solar for producing energy for anyone over the world (sun is our substance and also solar, too.) Enough to pursue the nature to live in happiness and feel all great points in the world. I wrote that to express my ideas after your this episode. THNK YOU::::
Plants may only convert 3% vs 10% of a solar panel but over the long term plants can absorb more. A solar panels life is 10-20 years (if lucky), however trees can live hundreds to thousands of years. Will be exciting when solar panels can convert more than 10% and when they can work on passive light (eg inside the house)
In our consumerist society companies need to get the most money possible so they make fragile components so that products break and people buy new ones. Robust and anti-fragile components such as self-replicating "3D bio printers " won't get any profit...
@@wagnergauer9133 Yeah, but in order to offset the time they are working for, they cost a fortune- I cannot afford to cover my roof in solar panels, but as long as there is a profit motive, they'll never be affordable for most people. They'll just make us keep burning fossils until it is cheaper to use alternatives.
Uto Pia We took our figures from this 2011 study conducted by Washington University: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/wuis-tpi042811.php We were surprised with the result as well, since nature has had hundreds of millions of years to perfect the process. But in actuality, leaves only take the bare minimum they need for photosynthesis, and so only absorb a narrow range of wavelengths. We're able to make materials which absorb a much wider range. That said, solar panels aren't the be all and end all. As a previous commenter, Rob N, states - plants will aborb more light over their entire lifetime. But the future possibilities are exciting; photovoltaics is a field that is still growing (if you'll pardon the pun!)
@@realdvgarg No they just give us oxygen, food, wood, paper, rubber, etc... what am i rambling about? We need electricity of course you are right! Some people don't get it!
@@beyondme9369 You could burn them and use the heat released to drive a turbine- or use a glucose fuel cell to release electricity from the sugars they produce.
Now I know solar cells are man made- but where is the historical evidence that this god person created plants? When? How? Will he come down and explain his process to us in person?
