Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > General Science
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 22-October-2005, 10:23 PM
drhex's Avatar
drhex drhex is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: /proc/self
Posts: 56
Arrow solar cells vs plant leaves

I've read that the most efficient solar/photovoltaic cells can reach efficiencies of around 30%. How does that compare to what leaves of typical plants can do?
(leaves cannot be 100% efficient, or they'd be black)
__________________
I have a much better signature in a parallel universe
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 23-October-2005, 08:48 PM
JHotz JHotz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 328
Default Efficiency can mean a great many things

Quote:
Originally Posted by drhex
I've read that the most efficient solar/photovoltaic cells can reach efficiencies of around 30%.
What sort of efficiency is really important for solar panels? In space it is weight of panels and deployment apparatus verses power output. I recall the use of some lens arrays on the panels to increase the amount of light falling on them. This would not have been practical on earth because it is cheaper to add more panels. On earth I would say total power output for the life of the panel verses cost of alternatives. It is more efficient to directly heat water then use solar panel electricity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drhex
How does that compare to what leaves of typical plants can do?
(leaves cannot be 100% efficient, or they'd be black)
I do not know what percent of light falling on a leaf is used to make food and oxygen by the plant. There are other issues to consider though. The food is a more efficient energy source for the plant than electricity is for people. So how do you really compare the two? Plants us a great deal of the no visible spectrum do solar panels as well?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 25-October-2005, 05:42 AM
Jens's Avatar
Jens Jens is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,904
Default

Hopefully somebody with more expertize can help you, but for starters, I'm not sure if the efficiency of a solar cell and that of plants doing photosynthesis is directly comparable. I don't know if a leaf would have to be black to be efficiency, because it may be that the process is not the same, i.e. they are not simply using sunlight for it heating potential. It may be acting as a catalyst in the reaction. Also, it may be that the main constraining factor for photovoltaic cells is sunlight, but it's possible that for photosynthesis, there are other constraining factors that are more important, like need for carbon dioxide or water or whatever. So it may be that the efficiency wouldn't be measured in quite the same way.
__________________
As above, so below
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 25-October-2005, 06:14 AM
Van Rijn's Avatar
Van Rijn Van Rijn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,217
Default

According to this webpage:


Quote:
Only light within the wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm (photosynthetically active radiation, PAR) can be utilized by plants, effectively allowing only 45 % of total solar energy to be utilized for photosynthesis. Furthermore, fixation of one CO2 molecule during photosynthesis, necessitates a quantum requirement of ten (or more), which results in a maximum utilization of only 25% of the PAR absorbed by the photosynthetic system. On the basis of these limitations, the theoretical maximum efficiency of solar energy conversion is approximately 11%. In practice, however, the magnitude of photosynthetic efficiency observed in the field, is further decreased by factors such as poor absorption of sunlight due to its reflection, respiration requirements of photosynthesis and the need for optimal solar radiation levels. The net result being an overall photosynthetic efficiency of between 3 and 6% of total solar radiation.
That's somewhat higher than numbers I remember reading ages ago. I'm sure it depends on what exactly you count, and this is certainly not my area of expertise, so I can't vouch for accuracy. But, yes, there are a number of steps in photosynthesis, just as there are a number of steps from PV to storing the energy chemically for applications such as running a car.
__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today