Artificial photosynthesis can produce food without sunshine(news.ucr.edu)
news.ucr.edu
Artificial photosynthesis can produce food without sunshine
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/06/23/artificial-photosynthesis-can-produce-food-without-sunshine
43 comments
> If there were free lunches plants would have evolved them.
Well, chlorophyll evolved for survival, not to maximize yields for human agriculture. In the wild, plant growth is bottlenecked on the availability of water and nutrients, and they tend to get way more sunlight than they can use. This is shown by the fact that chlorophyll is green, so plants are actively reflecting away most of the energy from the sun (where green is the dominant wavelength). If wild plants benefited from absorbing all available sunlight, they would be black (or, given the specific chemistries involved, probably a deep purple). In artificial conditions, perhaps one could do better.
Which isn't to say that artificial starch poduction isn't still the way to go, but even in the grim darkness of the future where we're all eating starch capsules for every meal, people will still want a tomato once in a while.
Well, chlorophyll evolved for survival, not to maximize yields for human agriculture. In the wild, plant growth is bottlenecked on the availability of water and nutrients, and they tend to get way more sunlight than they can use. This is shown by the fact that chlorophyll is green, so plants are actively reflecting away most of the energy from the sun (where green is the dominant wavelength). If wild plants benefited from absorbing all available sunlight, they would be black (or, given the specific chemistries involved, probably a deep purple). In artificial conditions, perhaps one could do better.
Which isn't to say that artificial starch poduction isn't still the way to go, but even in the grim darkness of the future where we're all eating starch capsules for every meal, people will still want a tomato once in a while.
>most of the energy from the sun (where green is the dominant wavelength)
That's actually a common misconception that even some older physics textbooks get wrong. You could argue with the same logic (and the same math, just using the frequency domain black body description) that the peak output of the sun is in the infrared. But the truth is that there is no such thing as a dominant wavelength in a continuous density distribution spectrum.
See e.g. here for more info: https://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light-and-radiometry/l...
That's actually a common misconception that even some older physics textbooks get wrong. You could argue with the same logic (and the same math, just using the frequency domain black body description) that the peak output of the sun is in the infrared. But the truth is that there is no such thing as a dominant wavelength in a continuous density distribution spectrum.
See e.g. here for more info: https://www.oceanopticsbook.info/view/light-and-radiometry/l...
Well, I'll know who to blame when all the tomato is gone! :)
The best tradeoffs for humans are also different from the best for plants. Even fully domesticated ones like wheat still have to put energy into completely regrowing themselves every year, fighting pathogens, reproduction machinery... I'd put decent odds on synthetic production being massively more efficient.
Yes, it's a bit like the problem with biofuels and internal combustion engines - there's a lot of waste and destruction [1]. Solar panels with electric cars are a lot more direct and efficient route for the same mobility.
There should be billions pouring into artificial food. It would solve so many problems that we have.
1: Ocean dead zones for example: https://www.vims.edu/research/topics/dead_zones/index.php
There should be billions pouring into artificial food. It would solve so many problems that we have.
1: Ocean dead zones for example: https://www.vims.edu/research/topics/dead_zones/index.php
Plants have hard time evolving parts that require large pieces of crystalline silicon.
If we can boost plant production using electricity generated by solar panels next (or above) the fields or greenhouses, it could be great. An not only on Mars or Moon, but here on Earth, too.
Faster growth may mean two crops per year instead of one in some places. Acetate is easy to store, so it's a good way to apply the excess solar output during day, and excess nuclear output at night time.
If we can boost plant production using electricity generated by solar panels next (or above) the fields or greenhouses, it could be great. An not only on Mars or Moon, but here on Earth, too.
Faster growth may mean two crops per year instead of one in some places. Acetate is easy to store, so it's a good way to apply the excess solar output during day, and excess nuclear output at night time.
> An not only on Mars or Moon, but here on Earth, too.
I think it'll be niche on Earth, but maybe it has a role to play-- e.g. for food security for cold nations that already rely on greenhouses and could improve yields.
I think it'll be niche on Earth, but maybe it has a role to play-- e.g. for food security for cold nations that already rely on greenhouses and could improve yields.
Most of Europe can only have one crop of many cultures per year. What if some of them could grow faster and fit two crops into the summer? This might be useful not only in places like Sweden, but even in places like France.
Maybe. Doing it once in the lab and making it look like the economics might kind of work for a broader area isn't very convincing to me.
This is how you grow a winter crop in a warehouse. Right now we are burning tons of fuel to ship fresh produce between northern and Southern Hemispheres depending on which is experiencing the growing season. This could be the path to local fresh produce year round. Possibly more environmentally friendly than the current method.
Iceland has huge greenhouses. Norway is exporting their indoor aquaculture expertise and investments to other countries. We're getting there but not quickly enough.
The problem with starch is that it's empty energy for a human.
Zero micronutrients, only carbs.
Humans need micronutrients, fats and some protein to live.
Carbs are optional.
Since starch is pure carbs this means that a diet high in artificial starch will just fatten you up while making you nutrient deficient.
It's only use if for extreme hunger prevention.
But humans raised on that kind of a diet will be deficient.
Zero micronutrients, only carbs.
Humans need micronutrients, fats and some protein to live.
Carbs are optional.
Since starch is pure carbs this means that a diet high in artificial starch will just fatten you up while making you nutrient deficient.
It's only use if for extreme hunger prevention.
But humans raised on that kind of a diet will be deficient.
You can almost get all the micro nutrients you need for the day from a tablespoon of dried watercress.
If micronutrients are ever a problem, we are really screwed on macronutrients.
If micronutrients are ever a problem, we are really screwed on macronutrients.
This sort of thinking has led to people consuming Huel as their sole food source. To be clear, we're a long way from understanding all the interactions of various foodstuffs and their nutrients on our health and wellbeing. That's even before we consider the mental health benefits that a varied diet brings.
While I share your dream of no longer needing to eat, we still can't really live on Soylent. Our understanding of nutrition is growing, including what we consider as nutrients and how they're absorbed/interact.
One of the hypotheses for the obesity epidemic is a reduction in essential nutrients, resulting in a lack of satiety.
Understanding of prebiotics, phytonutrients, and ultratrace minerals are relatively new, and we're still learning how different forms of fat have different impacts.
In the meantime, improving existing yields could be really helpful.
One of the hypotheses for the obesity epidemic is a reduction in essential nutrients, resulting in a lack of satiety.
Understanding of prebiotics, phytonutrients, and ultratrace minerals are relatively new, and we're still learning how different forms of fat have different impacts.
In the meantime, improving existing yields could be really helpful.
If this scales it could be a much more sustainable way to grow livestock feed and biofuels
Previous discussion here, linked to original research report:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867921
As an aside, university press releases are probably the worst source of information on new research reports, they're almost always one-sided puff pieces comparable to corporate press releases promoting some new product.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31867921
As an aside, university press releases are probably the worst source of information on new research reports, they're almost always one-sided puff pieces comparable to corporate press releases promoting some new product.
>"Experiments showed that a wide range of food-producing organisms can be grown in the dark directly on the acetate-rich electrolyzer output, including green algae, yeast, and fungal mycelium that produce mushrooms. Producing algae with this technology is approximately fourfold more energy efficient than growing it photosynthetically. Yeast production is about 18-fold more energy efficient than how it is typically cultivated using sugar extracted from corn."
Absolutely brilliant!
Absolutely brilliant!
>> grown in the dark
> brilliant!
Please let go of my leg.
And how much of a saving is being "more energy-efficient" than zero-cost sunlight?
> brilliant!
Please let go of my leg.
And how much of a saving is being "more energy-efficient" than zero-cost sunlight?
Animals can use acetate directly as a carbon and energy source. For bovines it’s probably at least half of their input, with much of the rest being other volatile fatty acids.
During space age, in the 60s, "astronaut food" was all the rage: lyophilized/freeze dried food, nutrient pills, ... people thought the future of food was tech-food.
60 years later and the greatest market trends in food are organic, all natural, whole foods, "terroir" and origin certified foods, ...
Moral of the story: people just don't trust in techies for gastronomy.
60 years later and the greatest market trends in food are organic, all natural, whole foods, "terroir" and origin certified foods, ...
Moral of the story: people just don't trust in techies for gastronomy.
Is organic/all nature food actually more nutritious and backed by science? Otherwise nothing has changed: we care more about how the food is produced instead of whether it's actually better.
> Is organic/all nature food actually more nutritious and backed by science?
Yes to both. There is plenty of literature available.
Most industrial agricolture is entirely optimized for maximum yield measured in weight, not measured in vitamin content or taste or health.
Yes to both. There is plenty of literature available.
Most industrial agricolture is entirely optimized for maximum yield measured in weight, not measured in vitamin content or taste or health.
If it’s actually organic it’s likely pesticide free which is probably better for you. Pesticides are for avoiding famine, not ensuring your food is 100% the most healthy for you.
It’s more than lack of trust, it’s that naturally grown food just tastes better and is better for you.
It turns out that high-quality food is more than just carbs, protein, and fat.
It turns out that high-quality food is more than just carbs, protein, and fat.
While high quality is indeed more than just carbs, protein, and fat, it’s equally an oversimplification to talk of “naturally grown” when that was last true a bit before the domestication of plants and agricultural animals (c. 13k BC), and the invention of basic irrigation and the discovery that crop rotation helped yields (both c. 6k BC).
Where is the plant getting its NPK in this system?
There's food (aka good tasting food, which was exposed to the sun and grown in the open) and there's FoOd (aka tastes like water, grown under glass).
Most of the food you can buy nowadays, even on "local markets", is the latter variant. Cheaply produced without taste or value that lasts for weeks without going bad. Unhealthy food. And it's making us more stupid because we don't get enough of the nutrition we usually would.
I remember the story about 2 girls from India who moved to the UK. They would get ill and no reason could be found until someone had the idea that the food in India was actual natural food, and the food in the UK was this watered down food.
How often do you eat a tomato nowadays that tastes like a tomato and not like a watermelon without the taste?
Most of the food you can buy nowadays, even on "local markets", is the latter variant. Cheaply produced without taste or value that lasts for weeks without going bad. Unhealthy food. And it's making us more stupid because we don't get enough of the nutrition we usually would.
I remember the story about 2 girls from India who moved to the UK. They would get ill and no reason could be found until someone had the idea that the food in India was actual natural food, and the food in the UK was this watered down food.
How often do you eat a tomato nowadays that tastes like a tomato and not like a watermelon without the taste?
Glass in between the light has absolutely no relation to taste or other properties. My own best veggies are grown in a greenhouse. It's about the soil and what you grow - commercial strains are not selected for taste but durability/good looks. If you grew the same commercial strain """naturally""" you'd still get bad taste.
Can you point to an article about the two girls from India?
Cultivation of caloric crops are one of the largest contributors to agricultural land use. Disruption here would have a huge environmental impact. Once carbon dioxide has been fixed you can use carbohydrates as an energy feedstock for many downstream organisms. Where's our lab grown starch startups at?
Pure clickbait. Solar panels turn sunlight into electricity. Electrolysis creates acetate. Mushrooms, yeast, algae grow in acetate.
Only if you start from solar panels. Yeast and green algae could be grown from anything that produces electricity at that point (geothermal, nuclear).
I'm guessing the complexity and costs don't warrant using it on Earth, thus the suggestion of use on Mars.
Also. From the article.
"The potential for employing this technology to grow crop plants was also investigated. Cowpea, tomato, tobacco, rice, canola, and green pea were all able to utilize carbon from acetate when cultivated in the dark.
'We found that a wide range of crops could take the acetate we provided and build it into the major molecular building blocks an organism needs to grow and thrive.'"
…
"“Imagine someday giant vessels growing tomato plants in the dark and on Mars—how much easier would that be for future Martians?”"
I'm guessing the complexity and costs don't warrant using it on Earth, thus the suggestion of use on Mars.
Also. From the article.
"The potential for employing this technology to grow crop plants was also investigated. Cowpea, tomato, tobacco, rice, canola, and green pea were all able to utilize carbon from acetate when cultivated in the dark.
'We found that a wide range of crops could take the acetate we provided and build it into the major molecular building blocks an organism needs to grow and thrive.'"
…
"“Imagine someday giant vessels growing tomato plants in the dark and on Mars—how much easier would that be for future Martians?”"
Why can't you just use sunlight from Mars to grow food on Mars?
I imagined energy would not be the main bottleneck to growing food on a different planet.
I imagined energy would not be the main bottleneck to growing food on a different planet.
There's a lot less of it on Mars. Also exposing things to sunlight is complicated by the high levels of radiation.
> Imagine someday giant vessels growing tomato plants in the dark and on Mars—how much easier would that be for future Martians?
Tomatoes are naturally pollinated only by bees. If you don’t have pollination, you don’t have tomatoes. Artificial pollination of tomatoes requires some that vibrates like a bee. Such devices are called tomato ticklers. Efficient pollination seems like a bit of a problem to solve at scale.
Tomatoes are naturally pollinated only by bees. If you don’t have pollination, you don’t have tomatoes. Artificial pollination of tomatoes requires some that vibrates like a bee. Such devices are called tomato ticklers. Efficient pollination seems like a bit of a problem to solve at scale.
That was solved long ago...
Tomato & Blossom Set Spray contains a plant hormone found in nature that promotes blossom set and fruit development. Use to promote fruit to set and for larger fruits and vegetables
https://bonide.com/product/tomato-blossom-set-spray-rtu/
Tomato & Blossom Set Spray contains a plant hormone found in nature that promotes blossom set and fruit development. Use to promote fruit to set and for larger fruits and vegetables
https://bonide.com/product/tomato-blossom-set-spray-rtu/
Hm, I guess the efficiency part is possibly interesting on Earth too. Could allow for fresh produce in inaccessible areas with limited space and difficult shipping, even if the power was solar collected, given the efficiencies are so much higher than plant photosynthesis. South pole research station, small islands with infrequent shipping, nuclear submarines.
From a land-use perspective, growing this way can be very efficient. With most industrially grown crops you are essentially limited to one "layer" of crops; but here you could stack crops in a warehouse (though similar arguments apply to vertical farms using artificial light).
> (though similar arguments apply to vertical farms using artificial light).
Other than this could potentially reduce the energy requirement by 75% or more.
Other than this could potentially reduce the energy requirement by 75% or more.
Article in the second statement refers to the efficiency of natural plants' way of food production: "This process, however, is very inefficient, with only about 1% of the energy found in sunlight ending up in the plant."
So comparing it to the current efficiency of photovoltaic sources of energy (up to 50% https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/photovoltaics-and-...) and allowing for a lot of losses of energy in the whole process it is still not unexpected to have a couple of times better effectiveness than of natural process.
It's worth reading a bit more than the header...
I was going to say: Photosythesis without light? You don't need a science degree or even read to article to know the title is utter rubbish.
https://newatlas.com/science/artificial-synthesis-starch-fro...