The means: teaching the plants to act efficiently * Can humans teach the plants how to improve the process of photosynthesis?
It is possible that the solution to the energy crisis is right outside the window - in plants. They are the food producers and energy converters, and they are also responsible for the ecological balance by regulating the composition of gases in the atmosphere. The plants invented "photovoltaic cells" - which are able to absorb the sun's energy and convert it into a high-energy substance, which they use as fuel - as part of the process called photosynthesis. The annual amount of carbon dioxide that plants take in for this process is 300 billion tons - 10 times more than all the carbon dioxide produced by humans in a year. The mechanisms of photosynthesis may, therefore, be a key to more efficient utilization of the natural resources at our disposal, for example to increase the growth rate of agricultural crops and of plants used as biofuel, such as algae. The main limitation lies in the fact that even the plants - who invented the process and perfected it over millions of years of evolution - have long since reached the limit of their ability.
Photosynthesis is a process that does not exhaust the potential inherent in solar energy.
Can humans teach plants how to improve photosynthesis?
A study by Dr. Ron Milo and his group members, Aran Bar-Evan and Elad Noor from the Department of Plant Sciences at the Weizmann Institute of Science, which was recently published in the scientific journal "Records of the American Academy of Sciences" (PNAS), suggests that the answer to this may be positive. Dr. Milo uses tools and approaches from the field of systems biology to study quantitative aspects of the photosynthesis process with the aim of optimizing them. His work combines computational-theoretical methods with experimental methods, with the aim of "disassembling" the photosynthetic machine into its components - enzymes that were created and adapted to their role in an evolutionary process that lasted millions of years. In this way he hopes to create more effective combinations of the various components of the process.
How does the machine work? The plants know how to take inorganic carbon atoms found in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide gas, and transfer them to the living world by producing sugar molecules from them - a process called "carbon fixation". The initial carbon molecule they produce is a basic building block for many other materials, and in addition, it also functions as a "battery" that stores energy. The production of sugar from carbon dioxide molecules is done through a circular sequence of enzymatic processes called the "Kelvin cycle". There are also bacteria that know how to fix carbon in six other pathways.
The research by Dr. Milo and the members of his group tested the possibility of using compositions of different enzymes, from a pool of 5,000 enzymes known to science, and used them as components that can be "cut and pasted" to create the fastest circuit (similar to the way electronic components are connected to create the electric circuit the most successful). The computerized algorithm they developed scans all possible combinations, starting with the key enzymes that capture the carbon from the atmosphere, and progressing through the stages of the production of the sugar molecule. In this way, the scientists succeeded in discovering a theoretical system whose efficiency is two to three times higher than that of natural photosynthesis. Today they are making the first attempts to produce the system in practice, and to test its effectiveness in vitro. Dr. Milo: "These findings may open a new path to face the challenge of increasing food production and renewable energy sources, using bioengineering methods."
Science in numbers
How many cells are there in human skin? And how many nerve cells does the cerebral cortex consist of? What is the size of the cells in the lung? Such data are important not only to collectors of trivia facts, but especially to biologists, who in recent years are increasingly required to "speak in numbers". Quantitative research in the fields of life sciences and biology is increasingly occupying a central place in the world of qualitative research. However, the numerical data needed by scientists for their work are scattered in various sources, and accessing them is complicated and requires a lot of time investment. Dr. Ron Milo, who encountered these difficulties in his post-doctoral research at Harvard University, initiated and established together with his colleagues, Paul Jorgensen and Mike Springer, the website Bio Numbers, which collects quantitative data needed by scientists. The site is used every month by more than 3,000 scientists and research students from about 50 countries, and it includes close to 5,000 numerical data on more than 200 different animals, plants and bacteria.
personal
Ron Milo was born in Haifa in 1975, and began his scientific career at the age of 15, when he won the National Physics Olympiad in 1990. As a high school student, he participated in the Shalit workshop at the Weizmann Institute of Science, and in 1992 he was selected to participate in a delegation of young scientists to an international conference in London. in 1996
He received a bachelor's degree with honors in physics and mathematics from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem as part of the Telpiot program, and three years later he received a master's degree in electrical engineering from Tel Aviv University. He then went on to study for a PhD in Prof. Uri Alon's laboratory at the Weizmann Institute of Science. In 2005 he received a doctor's degree, after which he carried out post-doctoral research at the Weizmann Institute of Science and Harvard University. In 2008 he joined the department of plant sciences at the institute.
Dr. Milo is married to Hila, and has two daughters, five-year-old Gefen and two-year-old Yore. He spends most of his free time traveling in Israel and playing the harmonica.
13 תגובות
Lahud, thank you for the exhaustive explanation regarding Generation IV miners
Regarding generation IV miners (what is written in response 9 is a typo) these are miners that are currently under development. These reactors are fast reactors in which the neutrons hardly slow down after fission. This fact sets them apart from the previous generations of miners. Generation IV reactors are supposed to address the following problems: Utilization of the fissured material. Today in reactors a small percentage of the fissile material is used in reactor fuel. This percentage should increase significantly in Generation IV reactors. Nuclear waste materials. In the used fuel of power reactors today there are many radioactive isotopes with long half-lives, the fast neutrons in generation IV reactors are supposed to burn (nuclear) the fission products and make the waste less problematic. The used fuel rods in generation IV reactors will not allow their utilization for the production of plutonium and in addition For all this, they should be almost completely safe also regarding all the human errors that may occur.
Lahud, I would love to learn what sets the VI generation miners apart from older generations?
It is true that the sun is the source of most of the energy available to us, but this does not say anything about what is the preferred source of energy. The assumption that solar energy is preferable because it originates from the sun is similar to the claim that the origin of bills is in the state and therefore we should expect to earn money in droves from the state. Something that in most cases is not proven to be effective...
The relevant questions regarding energy are: the cost of the energy source, fossil fuel, gas, uranium or free energy sources: solar, wind, geothermal. The prices of the energy sources vary according to the supply. The efficiency or how much energy can be produced from an energy source. Regarding the efficiency there are general physical limitations, for example regarding solar cells there is a theoretical efficiency limit of about 40%, today they are very far from this limit. There is the question regarding the utility today, something that can change with technology but takes a relatively long time. The cost of the devices or plants that produce energy from the energy sources. Waste and free waste, a very significant question regarding nuclear reactors. Regular maintenance which is a problem for solar cells that must be cleaned of dust. Safety which is especially a crucial question regarding nuclear reactors. In addition, one should try to estimate how long we can use this energy source and what the chances are (there are thoughts about fusion reactors, it is not clear if it can be fueled).
Bottom line, the maturity of the technology today in the context of utilizing an energy source is extremely important and therefore
In my opinion, as I have already stated several times, the preferred source of energy is nuclear energy, especially with the plans for Generation VI reactors.
Very interesting article. But even this method can have significant disadvantages in the environmental aspect. One of them was mentioned in the article itself and it is the effect of the accelerated growth on the carbon balance in the atmosphere, another was mentioned in another article published here and it concerned the use of fertilizers and the nitrogen balance in the world.
Anonymous (5):
I did not claim that there are sources other than the sun. on the contrary. I always claim that the sun is the source of all the energy available to us. You can see this, for example, in this response of mine:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/new-solar-energy-conversion-process-1308108/#comment-274777
In the current response, I tried to address Ra'anan's words directly, so I addressed the industry separately.
Although the energy that we use in industry comes mostly from the sun, its existence does not indicate the amount of energy that comes from the sun on an ongoing basis, but only the amount of energy that has accumulated over the billions of years that the earth has already existed and man has not yet wasted it.
Anonymous (6):
The fact that there is a lot of energy in the sun does not mean that enough of it is available to man. The answer to this question must be based on the part of that energy that reaches the earth.
Fortunately - this portion is more than large enough to satisfy all our needs.
By the way - the vast majority of the energy emitted from the sun does not reach any planet at all.
refreshed
The sun has so much energy that not only does it affect every planet, it also has a lot of energy left over for other planets.
To Michael,
What serious source of energy, except from a radioactive source, is not from the sun? Oil is also an organic substance that determines its time with the help of the sun (and very little in chemosynthesis - mainly photosynthesis).
Wind and wave energies are also indirectly related to the sun (and moon).
Most of the energy, which is mineral energy or fossil energy in Yiddish, originates from fixation by the sun.
refresh,
Your approach in your first post is wrong, in my opinion: the fact that this or that gadget hasn't been invented yet doesn't mean it can't exist. Evolution is a matter that changes all the time and it is certainly possible that processes that are not effective today will take different turns in the future. What these good guys are doing in the lab is accelerated evolution by design. We will not argue about my last sentence - it has too much religious charge. The idea is that Not everything that exists is the most effective and. There is no reason for something more effective to be created, whether by nature or by man in a laboratory.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
fresh:
What importance does the "direct" method have? Is the way to "dance" not good?
The point is that there is enough energy coming from the sun.
I'm talking about the direct way.
fresh:
Are you serious?
All the energy that is used by all humans and all animals (for living - not for industry) comes from the sun.
Although not directly - but through what they eat.
If it were possible to get enough energy from the sun, there would not be humans who eat, but humans who tan. Solar energy may be enough if you are a passive plant. It's not that we don't need to develop the solar sector, it's just that there is no chance that it could be a substitute for oil, we need to focus on nuclear energy.