In a previous post I explained how some scientists are trying to improve the efficiency of photosynthesis in rice.

See:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4730

Some scientists have an even more ambitious approach to improving photosynthesis. They are trying to apply the lessons learned in developing photovoltaic cells to photosynthesis. They are literally attempting to reinvent photosynthesis.

The key is this. Much of the solar radiation reaching Earth surface is in the form of visible light.* The visible light spectrum spans the colours from red at the long wavelength end to violet at the short end. Most plants use chlorophyll to “catch” photons. But chlorophyll based photosynthesis utilises only a tiny part of the visible light spectrum.

Is it possible to engineer plants that use other pigments in tandem with chlorophyll to catch photons? If we could we might be able to multiply the efficiency of photosynthesis 3, 5, maybe even 10 fold.

Well, nobody knows if it’s possible. But scientists in the brand new discipline of synthetic biology are going to give it a try.

See: http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2011/1370.html

So can we reinvent photosynthesis to produce more efficient plants?

What do posters think?

For a brief introduction to synthetic biology see:

THE ALLURE OF SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY
(From a recent edition of the journal Science devoted to synthetic biology)

>>This [synthetic biology] emerging field brings together biologists, physicists, chemists, and engineers who seek both to understand life and to build new biological functions. …Harvard's George Church wants to redesign the genetic code …
[…]
Schwille … paints a more radical view of synthetic biology, envisioning cells built entirely from synthetic modules…>>

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6047/1235

In short synthetic biology is about designing new organisms.

For bios of Nozik and Ghirardi see:

http://www.nrel.gov/research_fellows/nozik.html

http://www.nrel.gov/basic_sciences/technology_staff.cfm/tech=16/ID=6

*I am not including back radiation from atmospheric greenhouse gases which are in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Infrared photons are not suitable for photosynthesis.

Stephen is it possible that this will grow into an efficient synthetic method of harvesting the power from the sun.

We all know, even if some won't admit it, that the current crop of "renewable" energy systems are never going to be much use on a large scale. Could it be the start of the technology of power generation of the future, coming out of left field, as it always had to.

Hasbeen

Photosynthesis takes place in two stages. The first stage, photolysis, splits water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.

The second state, the “synthesis” stage, utilises the energy captured during photolysis to synthesise hydrogen rich biological compounds, mainly glucose. The energy stored in these compounds powers most life on Earth.

For our fuel needs we don’t want biomass. We could simply use the hydrogen released during photolysis as fuel.

The big dream is:

Can we develop an industrial scale process for using sunlight to generate hydrogen from water?

If we could we would have no more need for oil from rather unsavoury regimes. That might save us a few wars.

One scientist who is working on this is Thomas Malouk at Penn State:

See:

DESIGNING CATALYSTS FOR VISIBLE LIGHT WATER PHOTOLYSIS

http://www.ipeiem.rnu.tn/workshop/program/abstracts/Mallouk-abstract.htm

For a bio of Malouk see:

http://research.chem.psu.edu/mallouk/mallouk.htm

I think for now industrial photolysis is a better bet for solar fuels than new plants. But who knows?

<<In a previous post I explained how some scientists are trying to improve the efficiency of photosynthesis in rice.

See:...>>

Ho Hum!

With all due respect...it reads like a very dry 101 tute.

While I agree that the subject matter has great importance. We need to make the science interesting -sexy.

How ya gonna Keep 'em down on the pharm after they seen this:
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/x-factor/

What is the X factor that will make the science interesting to those beyond academia?

Interesting enough so that that programs like this:
http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/wondersofthesolarsystem/about/synopsis

Rate as high as programs like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterchef_Australia

Links like:
http://www.ipeiem.rnu.tn/workshop/program/abstracts/Mallouk-abstract.htm
which hosts lines like this:
"In this proof-of-concept experiment, the dye-IrO2 nanoparticles are adsorbed onto a porous TiO2 electrode and illuminated with blue light"

"ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"

Exactly, while science is more important than 'reality' TV competition show, it aint cool with the bogans and never will be. I'm not sad about this reality, twas always thus.

This kind of science doesn't really open itself to an opinion, as it doesn't contradict the bible or require any sort of policy action or regulation.

Yet.

im waiting for that 'one day'
when you start a topic

'in praise of god'

yeah i know
tell him he is dreaming

we got clever scientists
trying to out guess..natural design..for cash grants

for that god allready done..for free