<story><title>New “Leaf” Is More Efficient Than Natural Photosynthesis</title><url>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-bionic-leaf-is-roughly-10-times-more-efficient-than-natural-photosynthesis/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>matt4077</author><text>This needs the additional information that photosynthesis is incredibly inefficient. It&amp;#x27;s &amp;lt;5% IIRC, so we already have solar panels almost a magnitude better than what nature did.&lt;p&gt;(RuBisCO as the protein at the center of the process is also quite strange: it&amp;#x27;s huge and slow. As in &amp;#x27;this ain&amp;#x27;t funny any more, start working&amp;#x27; slow with about a reaction per second.)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jonchang</author><text>The comparison of photosynthesis vs energy generated by solar panels isn&amp;#x27;t very good, because it neglects the whole biology of the organism, which is optimized for things other than maximum photosynthetic output. For example, leaves are often targets of herbivory, so a plant might want to make a tradeoff [1] of less efficient photosynthesis for better herbivory defense. Or, it might be too costly to do photosynthesis, which requires the input of carbon dioxide, water, and light. In a very dry &amp;amp; hot environment, to get enough carbon dioxide into the leaf, the leaf will lose water by having its stomata open. Google &amp;quot;leaf economics spectrum&amp;quot; for a quick tutorial (the concept isn&amp;#x27;t 100% correct but it&amp;#x27;s a good starting point). Compare the leaves of tropical plants (say a banana palm) to arid plants (mesquite tree).&lt;p&gt;[1] I use this a teleological shorthand for &amp;quot;the selective environment has weeded out species that happen to fall on the wrong side of the tradeoff.&amp;quot;</text></comment>
<story><title>New “Leaf” Is More Efficient Than Natural Photosynthesis</title><url>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-bionic-leaf-is-roughly-10-times-more-efficient-than-natural-photosynthesis/?wt.mc=SA_Twitter-Share</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>matt4077</author><text>This needs the additional information that photosynthesis is incredibly inefficient. It&amp;#x27;s &amp;lt;5% IIRC, so we already have solar panels almost a magnitude better than what nature did.&lt;p&gt;(RuBisCO as the protein at the center of the process is also quite strange: it&amp;#x27;s huge and slow. As in &amp;#x27;this ain&amp;#x27;t funny any more, start working&amp;#x27; slow with about a reaction per second.)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>swamy_g</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t understand. Photosynthesis has been hailed as one of the most efficient processes by nature.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;when-it-comes-to-photosynthesis-plants-perform-quantum-computation&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;when-it-comes-to-p...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>