"If I was a shonk I'd tell you yes," he said.

Not knowing what a shonk was, I turned to urban dictionary. This was perhaps a mistake. A "shonk" is:

-A broken penis
-A range of sanwhich vans that retail in poor quality greasy food which is most definately not for the feint hearted, otherise known for selling their Shonk
-A thing which be-est dodgey in the manner of its fabrication or final design.
-to pull a fast one,to get one over on someone.To string something out but make it look like youv'e been busy.
-a Jew.
-The sound emitted when a baby is nursing on the mammalian breast for nourishment

So yeah, still confused. I think he meant "broken penis" though.

" "Nature very early on in the evolutionary process on Earth figured out how to do this particular piece of chemistry with close to 100 per cent efficiency,"

Try around 1-3%, guy. Photosynthesis is grossly inefficient. It only works because there is so much energy available in sunlight.

What are we going to do with all that extra oxygen though? Breathe it? I mean, come on, get real.

natazha: " "Nature very early on in the evolutionary process on Earth figured out how to do this particular piece of chemistry with close to 100 per cent efficiency,"

Try around 1-3%, guy. Photosynthesis is grossly inefficient. It only works because there is so much energy available in sunlight.

There can't be that much energy in sunlight, because I have it on good authority that SOYLANDRA!!!!!

natazha: " "Nature very early on in the evolutionary process on Earth figured out how to do this particular piece of chemistry with close to 100 per cent efficiency,"

Try around 1-3%, guy. Photosynthesis is grossly inefficient. It only works because there is so much energy available in sunlight.

Came to make the same statement. Developing technology that can harness solar energy at nearly 100% efficiency (and not requiring ludicrous amounts of rare materials) would be more useful than fusion.

Also, the theoretical maximum for photosynthesis is around 10%. Chlorophyll a and b are only sensitive to so much of the spectrum.

Does it involve magnets?

/please be magnets.

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-nanocrystals-nickel-catalyst-substantial l y-light-based.html

Here's a good one. 

Now, once they improve that a million-fold and somehow compress it without using fossil fuels, we can make a few hydrogen combustion cars (not fuel cell).

As if any of the oil companies would let this happen.

/My daily dose of black helicopter, illuminati whatever, conspiracy-laden tripe

madgonad: natazha: " "Nature very early on in the evolutionary process on Earth figured out how to do this particular piece of chemistry with close to 100 per cent efficiency,"

Try around 1-3%, guy. Photosynthesis is grossly inefficient. It only works because there is so much energy available in sunlight.

Came to make the same statement. Developing technology that can harness solar energy at nearly 100% efficiency (and not requiring ludicrous amounts of rare materials) would be more useful than fusion.

Also, the theoretical maximum for photosynthesis is around 10%. Chlorophyll a and b are only sensitive to so much of the spectrum.

Ummm seems clear to me that he is talking about the chemical reaction, e.g. there is almost no waste heat from the reaction. You two are talking about how efficiently plants use sunlight to produce their energy. Not remotely the same thing. Of course the efficiency anyone would care about is the one you are referring to.

Without the internet I would have no idea what a "shonk" is. With the internet I'm still a little puzzled.

Professors Rob Stranger and Ron Pace from the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University (ANU) have used computer modelling to reveal the molecular structure of the photosynthesis reaction site in plants.

Computational guys* used computers to draw a picture of the active site of the enzyme. Call me why the X-ray crystal data confirms it and the lab boys* synthethise a biomimetic oxygen-bridged managanese cluster (plus a calcium) with ligands that mimic the protein pocket that shows catalytic activity with no applied voltage, and the industrial guys* have scaled up production to the point where we can produce enough hydrogen to meet the world's energy demand.

No, seriously, call me when that happens, because it'll be awesome. It's just not gonna happen tomorrow, sadly.

* - I realise that phrasing's a bit sexist, but our slang hasn't caught up to gender neutrality yet
/anyone who says girls can't do science is peddling bullshiat

ristst: As if any of the oil companies would let this happen.

/My daily dose of black helicopter, illuminati whatever, conspiracy-laden tripe

Well, they'll have to use those gas stations for something.

madgonad: natazha: " "Nature very early on in the evolutionary process on Earth figured out how to do this particular piece of chemistry with close to 100 per cent efficiency,"

Try around 1-3%, guy. Photosynthesis is grossly inefficient. It only works because there is so much energy available in sunlight.

Came to make the same statement. Developing technology that can harness solar energy at nearly 100% efficiency (and not requiring ludicrous amounts of rare materials) would be more useful than fusion.

Also, the theoretical maximum for photosynthesis is around 10%. Chlorophyll a and b are only sensitive to so much of the spectrum. 

Link Could this be of use? I remember reading this article a while back.

Foxxinnia: What are we going to do with all that extra oxygen though? Breathe it? I mean, come on, get real.

You may kid, but the oxygen byproduct is actually a significant concern. We would be producing so much H2 for our energy needs that the O2 released into the atmosphere would potentially cause all kinds of problems.

CO2 is bad enough, but encourages rampant plant growth as the levels rise. Excessive O2 could cause toxicity problems for members of the animal kingdom as well as limiting plant growth. I think it would also spur massive growth of single cell creatures which could cause other problems. I've never really heard anyone talk of this potential problem before, though, so I'm just coming up with this as I go.

Perhaps if we balanced our use of fossil fuels and H2 the CO2 and O2 production would offset each other and we'd just end up making our atmosphere more dense.

Lev_Astov: You may kid, but the oxygen byproduct is actually a significant concern. We would be producing so much H2 for our energy needs that the O2 released into the atmosphere would potentially cause all kinds of problems.

Psst... when we extract the energy from the hydrogen, we'll use the oxygen too.

theorellior: natazha: Try around 1-3%, guy. Photosynthesis is grossly inefficient. It only works because there is so much energy available in sunlight.

One of the reasons photosynthesis is so "inefficient" is because you can only harvest so many energized electrons into an organic system before they decide to attack the cell walls, cytoplasm, nucleus and anything else they can get to, instead of nicely following the complicated chemical cascade set up to store that energy safely. It's why most chlorophyll reflects most of the peak emission bands of the solar spectrum (yellow-green), because it's easier to handle the lower numbers of red and blue photons.

Saying plants should use the "full" power of the solar flux is like saying that nuclear power plants should use the "full" power of an atomic detonation.

Oooh, interesting. I'm glad I read this before I did my why are plants green video.

Lev_Astov: Foxxinnia: What are we going to do with all that extra oxygen though? Breathe it? I mean, come on, get real.

You may kid, but the oxygen byproduct is actually a significant concern. We would be producing so much H2 for our energy needs that the O2 released into the atmosphere would potentially cause all kinds of problems.

CO2 is bad enough, but encourages rampant plant growth as the levels rise. Excessive O2 could cause toxicity problems for members of the animal kingdom as well as limiting plant growth. I think it would also spur massive growth of single cell creatures which could cause other problems. I've never really heard anyone talk of this potential problem before, though, so I'm just coming up with this as I go.


Largely because most scientists don't think anyone is stupid enough to do it.

Sure, injecting HIV, flesh eating bacteria, 16M HCl, and sarin in your scrotum *might* cure cancer, but I don't think anyone is going to try it.

On the plus side if we did do it, shortly after most mamals died we'd get giant insects.

Lev_Astov: Foxxinnia: What are we going to do with all that extra oxygen though? Breathe it? I mean, come on, get real.

You may kid, but the oxygen byproduct is actually a significant concern. We would be producing so much H2 for our energy needs that the O2 released into the atmosphere would potentially cause all kinds of problems.

CO2 is bad enough, but encourages rampant plant growth as the levels rise. Excessive O2 could cause toxicity problems for members of the animal kingdom as well as limiting plant growth. I think it would also spur massive growth of single cell creatures which could cause other problems. I've never really heard anyone talk of this potential problem before, though, so I'm just coming up with this as I go.

Perhaps if we balanced our use of fossil fuels and H2 the CO2 and O2 production would offset each other and we'd just end up making our atmosphere more dense.

We should put the extra gases back into the water supply! Carbonate the ocean! Woooo

ristst: As if any of the oil companies would let this happen.

Oil companies are actually in the business of selling energy, so they'd certainly be for any profitable changes to their industry.
...The people who own oil rich lands? Not so much.

/Much of that is federal land in the US.
/and who owns the black helicopters?
/*tinfoil hat*

madgonad: Chlorophyll a and b are only sensitive to so much of the spectrum.

What we need to do is create a bunch of compounds similar to chlorophyll, but sensitive to other parts of the spectrum. Some "friends", if you will. We can call them, chlorodave, chlorofred, chlorojohnny, and chloromelvin.

KarmicDisaster: Hate to break it to you, but electricity is involved (electrons are exchanged).

That's a bit of a stretch.

Lev_Astov: You may kid, but the oxygen byproduct is actually a significant concern. We would be producing so much H2 for our energy needs that the O2 released into the atmosphere would potentially cause all kinds of problems.

We'd kill ourselves off with waste heat long before that happened.
There's an unavoidable downside to energy production no matter how efficient the process. Using it. I mean, we can't even be responsible enough to handle oil, FFS. Free, plentiful energy would would mean the end of the human race on earth.

Woah, tag fail.
Damn it, "Add Comment" button... I can't quit you.

Bondith: Professors Rob Stranger and Ron Pace from the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University (ANU) have used computer modelling to reveal the molecular structure of the photosynthesis reaction site in plants.

Computational guys* used computers to draw a picture of the active site of the enzyme. Call me why the X-ray crystal data confirms it and the lab boys* synthethise a biomimetic oxygen-bridged managanese cluster (plus a calcium) with ligands that mimic the protein pocket that shows catalytic activity with no applied voltage, and the industrial guys* have scaled up production to the point where we can produce enough hydrogen to meet the world's energy demand.

No, seriously, call me when that happens, because it'll be awesome. It's just not gonna happen tomorrow, sadly.

* - I realise that phrasing's a bit sexist, but our slang hasn't caught up to gender neutrality yet
/anyone who says girls can't do science is peddling bullshiat

That is weapons grade PC there.

RedVentrue: Bondith: Professors Rob Stranger and Ron Pace from the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University (ANU) have used computer modelling to reveal the molecular structure of the photosynthesis reaction site in plants.

Computational guys* used computers to draw a picture of the active site of the enzyme. Call me why the X-ray crystal data confirms it and the lab boys* synthethise a biomimetic oxygen-bridged managanese cluster (plus a calcium) with ligands that mimic the protein pocket that shows catalytic activity with no applied voltage, and the industrial guys* have scaled up production to the point where we can produce enough hydrogen to meet the world's energy demand.

No, seriously, call me when that happens, because it'll be awesome. It's just not gonna happen tomorrow, sadly.

* - I realise that phrasing's a bit sexist, but our slang hasn't caught up to gender neutrality yet
/anyone who says girls can't do science is peddling bullshiat

That is weapons grade PC there.

How's life in the 50s?

Bondith: RedVentrue: Bondith: Professors Rob Stranger and Ron Pace from the Research School of Chemistry at the Australian National University (ANU) have used computer modelling to reveal the molecular structure of the photosynthesis reaction site in plants.

Computational guys* used computers to draw a picture of the active site of the enzyme. Call me why the X-ray crystal data confirms it and the lab boys* synthethise a biomimetic oxygen-bridged managanese cluster (plus a calcium) with ligands that mimic the protein pocket that shows catalytic activity with no applied voltage, and the industrial guys* have scaled up production to the point where we can produce enough hydrogen to meet the world's energy demand.

No, seriously, call me when that happens, because it'll be awesome. It's just not gonna happen tomorrow, sadly.

* - I realise that phrasing's a bit sexist, but our slang hasn't caught up to gender neutrality yet
/anyone who says girls can't do science is peddling bullshiat

That is weapons grade PC there.

How's life in the 50s?

Of course girls can do science, and are valuable because they look at problems differently then boys. It's your need to erase all traces of gender from language that are complete BS. Boys and girls ARE different. Get over it.

RedVentrue:
Of course girls can do science, and are valuable because they look at problems differently then boys. It's your need to erase all traces of gender from language that are complete BS. Boys and girls ARE different. Get over it.

Ah, OK. Fair enough. To be honest, most of the girls I know in grad school probably wouldn't even be offended by being referred to as guys. That word seems to be well on its way to being gender-neutral.

/got a little carried away

Zachery: Without the internet I would have no idea what a "shonk" is. With the internet I'm still a little puzzled.

Something that's shonky is dodgy, or crooked.