Don't forget, a living cell is not just as simple as one set of reactions that occur within it. Each system relies on every other system in the cell to function - you can't just isolate one and say "let's use this to our advantage" without dealing with this interdependency.
The main problem with using plants or photosynthesis for energy production is that the end products of the light reactions are NADPH and ATP. Except for use in other living systems, including our own bodies, we have no industrial use for these compounds. They are too unstable and poorly reactive on a grand scale. Even with a chloroplast, a plant cell needs mitochondria to create large amounts of energy, which opens up another can of worms entirely. Converting this chemical energy to electricity is certainly a monumental task (not to mention maintaining chloroplasts and mitochondira, or something similar to them, in a working condition).
Possibly someday, however, if we find a way to manipulate photosynthesis to create more stable compounds.
2006-07-01 14:33:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by michelsa0276 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
In time perhaps we will.
The very nature of science and discovery is that there is always something to be found and/or some better way to do something. Take a look at computers; we started with a computer that filled an entire room, used vacuum tubes, and could only do basic algebra. Now we have what amounts to computers that fit in the palm of your hand!
Scientists are constantly trying to find a better, cheaper, more efficient solution to everything, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that in the not-so-distant future we'll see some type of solar panel that indeed has an efficiency near that of plant life.
Or, perhaps, they'll develop some new technique that allows them to use the sun to rapidly create fuels much like the fossil fuels we use today.
As they say, "The sky is the limit".
2006-07-01 21:27:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by tcope5 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Solar energy is not where the money is, or rather, it's not where the obscene profits are.
As long as people beholden to big energy companies are in charge of our national energy policy, it will be a steady diet of coal, oil and gas for the foreseeable future.
Bush is a 100% Oilman, but not because he's ever successfully drilled for any.
2006-07-01 21:24:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by ratboy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I suggest reading dance of the molecules by Ted Sargent.Nano technology is the answer and the technilogical wave of present and future.I am involved with a nano tech company and we are cleaning buildings with the power of the sun.Buildings can be powered with nano tech manufacturing methods and they are closing in on it.Certain issues remain as power companies need to profit so this technology will have to be filtered into the economy
2006-07-01 21:56:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by themildewman1 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
the limitations right now are not the harnessing of the power, but storage. Once battery technology advances, solar power will be worthwhile.
Currently nuclear power is the best, cleanest and safest form of energy.
2006-07-01 21:24:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mac Momma 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
We're learning an awful lot about the process, but the reason we can't seem to design a more efficient process is that God developed the best process, and it's difficult to top His efforts.
2006-07-01 22:21:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Yah00_goddess 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because people want to believe there will be enough oil to last forever, and are unwilling to devote time and energy toward other energy sources until they absolutely have to.
2006-07-01 21:23:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
very expensive, not alot of companies do it , other ways to harness energy better, and plants had millions of year to develop there way to harness sun light
2006-07-01 21:27:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by wuzupez3 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
most are too expensive, inefficient and produce too little energy for the effort, time and capital put in..
though HEP as a pretty good alternative
2006-07-01 21:22:37
·
answer #9
·
answered by rain-shadow 2
·
0⤊
0⤋