Electrosynthetic Autotrophs
Why don't airports use arresting gears to recover energy from landing passenger planes?
In Bb5 systems against the Sicilian, why does White exchange their b5 bishop without playing a6?
Why cannot a convert make certain statements? I feel they are being pushed away at the same time respect is being given to them
Statistical tests for benchmark comparison
Why are two-stroke engines nearly unheard of in aviation?
Did slaves have slaves?
Can a business put whatever they want into a contract?
Why does '/' contain '..'?
Tikz: How to use multiple parameters in pic?
Is there a theorem in Real analysis similar to Cauchy's theorem in Complex analysis?
What does the "capacitor into resistance" symbol mean?
Plot irregular circle in latex
Is my sink P-trap too low?
Writing a system of Linear Equations
Is it possible that the shadow of the moon is a single dot during solar eclipse?
Beauville-Laszlo for schemes
How do we know that black holes are spinning?
How would you translate Evangelii Nuntiandi?
Can an infinite series be thought of as adding up "infinitely many" terms?
Hobby function generators
If a PC's ability score increases due to an item, does it increase the corresponding modifier for the ability score or any skills/attacks?
Electrosynthetic Autotrophs
Persuading players to be less attached to a pre-session 0 character concept
Why is the year in this ISO timestamp not 2019?
Electrosynthetic Autotrophs
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Photosynthesis has an abysmal efficiency with regards to converting solar energy into useful fuel for a plant, and I was wondering:
1) If it would be possible to engineer a plant to accept electrical energy as a power source.
2) What the biochemical mechanism for this might be.
3) What upper limits would be imposed on how quickly such plants might grow in comparison to photosynthetic ones given a steady supply of electrical power of appropriate characteristic.
flora biochemistry electricity
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Photosynthesis has an abysmal efficiency with regards to converting solar energy into useful fuel for a plant, and I was wondering:
1) If it would be possible to engineer a plant to accept electrical energy as a power source.
2) What the biochemical mechanism for this might be.
3) What upper limits would be imposed on how quickly such plants might grow in comparison to photosynthetic ones given a steady supply of electrical power of appropriate characteristic.
flora biochemistry electricity
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Plant growth is not limited by the efficiency of photosynthesis. Plant growth is limited by the availability of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen in suitable form and phosphorus in suitable form. (Hint: carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouses is practiced on a wide scale.) (Second hint: beween "a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide", says Wikipedia.)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Electricity is not a source of energy, but just a carrier..
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Photosynthesis has an abysmal efficiency with regards to converting solar energy into useful fuel for a plant, and I was wondering:
1) If it would be possible to engineer a plant to accept electrical energy as a power source.
2) What the biochemical mechanism for this might be.
3) What upper limits would be imposed on how quickly such plants might grow in comparison to photosynthetic ones given a steady supply of electrical power of appropriate characteristic.
flora biochemistry electricity
$endgroup$
Photosynthesis has an abysmal efficiency with regards to converting solar energy into useful fuel for a plant, and I was wondering:
1) If it would be possible to engineer a plant to accept electrical energy as a power source.
2) What the biochemical mechanism for this might be.
3) What upper limits would be imposed on how quickly such plants might grow in comparison to photosynthetic ones given a steady supply of electrical power of appropriate characteristic.
flora biochemistry electricity
flora biochemistry electricity
edited 5 hours ago
Algebraist
asked 8 hours ago
AlgebraistAlgebraist
6471 silver badge10 bronze badges
6471 silver badge10 bronze badges
2
$begingroup$
Plant growth is not limited by the efficiency of photosynthesis. Plant growth is limited by the availability of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen in suitable form and phosphorus in suitable form. (Hint: carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouses is practiced on a wide scale.) (Second hint: beween "a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide", says Wikipedia.)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Electricity is not a source of energy, but just a carrier..
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
2
$begingroup$
Plant growth is not limited by the efficiency of photosynthesis. Plant growth is limited by the availability of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen in suitable form and phosphorus in suitable form. (Hint: carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouses is practiced on a wide scale.) (Second hint: beween "a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide", says Wikipedia.)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Electricity is not a source of energy, but just a carrier..
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
8 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Plant growth is not limited by the efficiency of photosynthesis. Plant growth is limited by the availability of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen in suitable form and phosphorus in suitable form. (Hint: carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouses is practiced on a wide scale.) (Second hint: beween "a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide", says Wikipedia.)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Plant growth is not limited by the efficiency of photosynthesis. Plant growth is limited by the availability of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen in suitable form and phosphorus in suitable form. (Hint: carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouses is practiced on a wide scale.) (Second hint: beween "a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide", says Wikipedia.)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Electricity is not a source of energy, but just a carrier..
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Electricity is not a source of energy, but just a carrier..
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Not a biologist, but IMO plants are most often limited by nutrients, not energy, and that's why efficiency of photosynthesis isn't so crucial. Probably fastest growing plant is Azolla which can double its biomass every two to three days.
RuBisCO uses electric field to capture O2 and CO2 as first step of photosynthesis and it's rather inefficient at that, it limits rate of photosynthesis. Perhaps it could be more efficient by using external electric field, by how much I have no idea.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
There is already a process that we can conduct outside a plant which does something similar to this; it's called electrolysis. In its simplest form, you run an electrical current through water and it divides into its constituent gases; Hydrogen and Oxygen. It's actually an easy way to make rocket fuel out of water.
The important thing to understand here is what photosynthesis and electrolysis have in common; both are endothermic reactions; that is to say, they take energy and store it in a chemical form that allows it to be released by conversion back to lower energy states.
Plants, like animals, draw energy through their metabolism by mixing oxygen and carbohydrates and converting them to water and CO2. These forms take all the same atoms and mix them into molecules that have a lower energy state than molecular oxygen and carbohydrates, and the organism captures the net energy loss of the configuration change, using it for its own purposes. Ultimately, this one way operation is very wasteful over the long term unless there is a process that is also capturing energy in the form of oxygen and carbohydrates, and that is what photosynthesis does; it captures solar energy in a chemical form, effectively creating a store of chemical energy it can use to survive. Because you never know how sunny it's going to be, and because of seasons, and because of thousands of other variables, plants over-produce both oxygen and carbohydrates, filling the air with the excess oxygen that animals can breathe, and tempting us with fruits that contain massive amounts of natural sugars as a tradeoff for distributing their seeds.
Electrolysis is a far simpler chemical process that acts on water directly, but it is also an endothermic reaction insofar as the energy provided by the electricity is 'stored' in the two gases, which when burned together turn back into water and release a massive amount of energy in the process.
The point being, both processes rely on a specific energy source to capture in a chemical form. The real question is whether or not electrolysis could be co-opted in an organic process to produce more complex molecules that include carbon. Theoretically, the answer is of course yes and arguably this could be done my manipulating chlorophyll to work off electrical energy instead of light energy.
All that said; in the real world we already have plants that grow entirely off electrical energy and it doesn't involve any change to their physiology, and the technology that drives this growth is already well known to us; heat lamps.
What these do is convert electrical energy to light and heat, which the plants can readily absorb. While outside the spirit of your question, it becomes a simple problem solving matter; either you find a way to convert the plant to absorb electrical energy, or you convert the electrical energy into something that a plant can absorb. Ultimately, you're going to find that electricity is far more versatile than chlorophyll and as such, the simplest option is the latter one.
So, yes; it is theoretically possible to do as you suggest, but the simpler solution is one we already employ, even though it's not as science fiction-ey as converting chlorophyll to absorb electrical energy directly.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f156214%2felectrosynthetic-autotrophs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Not a biologist, but IMO plants are most often limited by nutrients, not energy, and that's why efficiency of photosynthesis isn't so crucial. Probably fastest growing plant is Azolla which can double its biomass every two to three days.
RuBisCO uses electric field to capture O2 and CO2 as first step of photosynthesis and it's rather inefficient at that, it limits rate of photosynthesis. Perhaps it could be more efficient by using external electric field, by how much I have no idea.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Not a biologist, but IMO plants are most often limited by nutrients, not energy, and that's why efficiency of photosynthesis isn't so crucial. Probably fastest growing plant is Azolla which can double its biomass every two to three days.
RuBisCO uses electric field to capture O2 and CO2 as first step of photosynthesis and it's rather inefficient at that, it limits rate of photosynthesis. Perhaps it could be more efficient by using external electric field, by how much I have no idea.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Not a biologist, but IMO plants are most often limited by nutrients, not energy, and that's why efficiency of photosynthesis isn't so crucial. Probably fastest growing plant is Azolla which can double its biomass every two to three days.
RuBisCO uses electric field to capture O2 and CO2 as first step of photosynthesis and it's rather inefficient at that, it limits rate of photosynthesis. Perhaps it could be more efficient by using external electric field, by how much I have no idea.
$endgroup$
Not a biologist, but IMO plants are most often limited by nutrients, not energy, and that's why efficiency of photosynthesis isn't so crucial. Probably fastest growing plant is Azolla which can double its biomass every two to three days.
RuBisCO uses electric field to capture O2 and CO2 as first step of photosynthesis and it's rather inefficient at that, it limits rate of photosynthesis. Perhaps it could be more efficient by using external electric field, by how much I have no idea.
answered 8 hours ago
JurajJuraj
1,1682 silver badges6 bronze badges
1,1682 silver badges6 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
There is already a process that we can conduct outside a plant which does something similar to this; it's called electrolysis. In its simplest form, you run an electrical current through water and it divides into its constituent gases; Hydrogen and Oxygen. It's actually an easy way to make rocket fuel out of water.
The important thing to understand here is what photosynthesis and electrolysis have in common; both are endothermic reactions; that is to say, they take energy and store it in a chemical form that allows it to be released by conversion back to lower energy states.
Plants, like animals, draw energy through their metabolism by mixing oxygen and carbohydrates and converting them to water and CO2. These forms take all the same atoms and mix them into molecules that have a lower energy state than molecular oxygen and carbohydrates, and the organism captures the net energy loss of the configuration change, using it for its own purposes. Ultimately, this one way operation is very wasteful over the long term unless there is a process that is also capturing energy in the form of oxygen and carbohydrates, and that is what photosynthesis does; it captures solar energy in a chemical form, effectively creating a store of chemical energy it can use to survive. Because you never know how sunny it's going to be, and because of seasons, and because of thousands of other variables, plants over-produce both oxygen and carbohydrates, filling the air with the excess oxygen that animals can breathe, and tempting us with fruits that contain massive amounts of natural sugars as a tradeoff for distributing their seeds.
Electrolysis is a far simpler chemical process that acts on water directly, but it is also an endothermic reaction insofar as the energy provided by the electricity is 'stored' in the two gases, which when burned together turn back into water and release a massive amount of energy in the process.
The point being, both processes rely on a specific energy source to capture in a chemical form. The real question is whether or not electrolysis could be co-opted in an organic process to produce more complex molecules that include carbon. Theoretically, the answer is of course yes and arguably this could be done my manipulating chlorophyll to work off electrical energy instead of light energy.
All that said; in the real world we already have plants that grow entirely off electrical energy and it doesn't involve any change to their physiology, and the technology that drives this growth is already well known to us; heat lamps.
What these do is convert electrical energy to light and heat, which the plants can readily absorb. While outside the spirit of your question, it becomes a simple problem solving matter; either you find a way to convert the plant to absorb electrical energy, or you convert the electrical energy into something that a plant can absorb. Ultimately, you're going to find that electricity is far more versatile than chlorophyll and as such, the simplest option is the latter one.
So, yes; it is theoretically possible to do as you suggest, but the simpler solution is one we already employ, even though it's not as science fiction-ey as converting chlorophyll to absorb electrical energy directly.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
There is already a process that we can conduct outside a plant which does something similar to this; it's called electrolysis. In its simplest form, you run an electrical current through water and it divides into its constituent gases; Hydrogen and Oxygen. It's actually an easy way to make rocket fuel out of water.
The important thing to understand here is what photosynthesis and electrolysis have in common; both are endothermic reactions; that is to say, they take energy and store it in a chemical form that allows it to be released by conversion back to lower energy states.
Plants, like animals, draw energy through their metabolism by mixing oxygen and carbohydrates and converting them to water and CO2. These forms take all the same atoms and mix them into molecules that have a lower energy state than molecular oxygen and carbohydrates, and the organism captures the net energy loss of the configuration change, using it for its own purposes. Ultimately, this one way operation is very wasteful over the long term unless there is a process that is also capturing energy in the form of oxygen and carbohydrates, and that is what photosynthesis does; it captures solar energy in a chemical form, effectively creating a store of chemical energy it can use to survive. Because you never know how sunny it's going to be, and because of seasons, and because of thousands of other variables, plants over-produce both oxygen and carbohydrates, filling the air with the excess oxygen that animals can breathe, and tempting us with fruits that contain massive amounts of natural sugars as a tradeoff for distributing their seeds.
Electrolysis is a far simpler chemical process that acts on water directly, but it is also an endothermic reaction insofar as the energy provided by the electricity is 'stored' in the two gases, which when burned together turn back into water and release a massive amount of energy in the process.
The point being, both processes rely on a specific energy source to capture in a chemical form. The real question is whether or not electrolysis could be co-opted in an organic process to produce more complex molecules that include carbon. Theoretically, the answer is of course yes and arguably this could be done my manipulating chlorophyll to work off electrical energy instead of light energy.
All that said; in the real world we already have plants that grow entirely off electrical energy and it doesn't involve any change to their physiology, and the technology that drives this growth is already well known to us; heat lamps.
What these do is convert electrical energy to light and heat, which the plants can readily absorb. While outside the spirit of your question, it becomes a simple problem solving matter; either you find a way to convert the plant to absorb electrical energy, or you convert the electrical energy into something that a plant can absorb. Ultimately, you're going to find that electricity is far more versatile than chlorophyll and as such, the simplest option is the latter one.
So, yes; it is theoretically possible to do as you suggest, but the simpler solution is one we already employ, even though it's not as science fiction-ey as converting chlorophyll to absorb electrical energy directly.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
There is already a process that we can conduct outside a plant which does something similar to this; it's called electrolysis. In its simplest form, you run an electrical current through water and it divides into its constituent gases; Hydrogen and Oxygen. It's actually an easy way to make rocket fuel out of water.
The important thing to understand here is what photosynthesis and electrolysis have in common; both are endothermic reactions; that is to say, they take energy and store it in a chemical form that allows it to be released by conversion back to lower energy states.
Plants, like animals, draw energy through their metabolism by mixing oxygen and carbohydrates and converting them to water and CO2. These forms take all the same atoms and mix them into molecules that have a lower energy state than molecular oxygen and carbohydrates, and the organism captures the net energy loss of the configuration change, using it for its own purposes. Ultimately, this one way operation is very wasteful over the long term unless there is a process that is also capturing energy in the form of oxygen and carbohydrates, and that is what photosynthesis does; it captures solar energy in a chemical form, effectively creating a store of chemical energy it can use to survive. Because you never know how sunny it's going to be, and because of seasons, and because of thousands of other variables, plants over-produce both oxygen and carbohydrates, filling the air with the excess oxygen that animals can breathe, and tempting us with fruits that contain massive amounts of natural sugars as a tradeoff for distributing their seeds.
Electrolysis is a far simpler chemical process that acts on water directly, but it is also an endothermic reaction insofar as the energy provided by the electricity is 'stored' in the two gases, which when burned together turn back into water and release a massive amount of energy in the process.
The point being, both processes rely on a specific energy source to capture in a chemical form. The real question is whether or not electrolysis could be co-opted in an organic process to produce more complex molecules that include carbon. Theoretically, the answer is of course yes and arguably this could be done my manipulating chlorophyll to work off electrical energy instead of light energy.
All that said; in the real world we already have plants that grow entirely off electrical energy and it doesn't involve any change to their physiology, and the technology that drives this growth is already well known to us; heat lamps.
What these do is convert electrical energy to light and heat, which the plants can readily absorb. While outside the spirit of your question, it becomes a simple problem solving matter; either you find a way to convert the plant to absorb electrical energy, or you convert the electrical energy into something that a plant can absorb. Ultimately, you're going to find that electricity is far more versatile than chlorophyll and as such, the simplest option is the latter one.
So, yes; it is theoretically possible to do as you suggest, but the simpler solution is one we already employ, even though it's not as science fiction-ey as converting chlorophyll to absorb electrical energy directly.
$endgroup$
There is already a process that we can conduct outside a plant which does something similar to this; it's called electrolysis. In its simplest form, you run an electrical current through water and it divides into its constituent gases; Hydrogen and Oxygen. It's actually an easy way to make rocket fuel out of water.
The important thing to understand here is what photosynthesis and electrolysis have in common; both are endothermic reactions; that is to say, they take energy and store it in a chemical form that allows it to be released by conversion back to lower energy states.
Plants, like animals, draw energy through their metabolism by mixing oxygen and carbohydrates and converting them to water and CO2. These forms take all the same atoms and mix them into molecules that have a lower energy state than molecular oxygen and carbohydrates, and the organism captures the net energy loss of the configuration change, using it for its own purposes. Ultimately, this one way operation is very wasteful over the long term unless there is a process that is also capturing energy in the form of oxygen and carbohydrates, and that is what photosynthesis does; it captures solar energy in a chemical form, effectively creating a store of chemical energy it can use to survive. Because you never know how sunny it's going to be, and because of seasons, and because of thousands of other variables, plants over-produce both oxygen and carbohydrates, filling the air with the excess oxygen that animals can breathe, and tempting us with fruits that contain massive amounts of natural sugars as a tradeoff for distributing their seeds.
Electrolysis is a far simpler chemical process that acts on water directly, but it is also an endothermic reaction insofar as the energy provided by the electricity is 'stored' in the two gases, which when burned together turn back into water and release a massive amount of energy in the process.
The point being, both processes rely on a specific energy source to capture in a chemical form. The real question is whether or not electrolysis could be co-opted in an organic process to produce more complex molecules that include carbon. Theoretically, the answer is of course yes and arguably this could be done my manipulating chlorophyll to work off electrical energy instead of light energy.
All that said; in the real world we already have plants that grow entirely off electrical energy and it doesn't involve any change to their physiology, and the technology that drives this growth is already well known to us; heat lamps.
What these do is convert electrical energy to light and heat, which the plants can readily absorb. While outside the spirit of your question, it becomes a simple problem solving matter; either you find a way to convert the plant to absorb electrical energy, or you convert the electrical energy into something that a plant can absorb. Ultimately, you're going to find that electricity is far more versatile than chlorophyll and as such, the simplest option is the latter one.
So, yes; it is theoretically possible to do as you suggest, but the simpler solution is one we already employ, even though it's not as science fiction-ey as converting chlorophyll to absorb electrical energy directly.
answered 5 hours ago
Tim B IITim B II
42.1k6 gold badges94 silver badges169 bronze badges
42.1k6 gold badges94 silver badges169 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f156214%2felectrosynthetic-autotrophs%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
Plant growth is not limited by the efficiency of photosynthesis. Plant growth is limited by the availability of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen in suitable form and phosphorus in suitable form. (Hint: carbon dioxide enrichment in greenhouses is practiced on a wide scale.) (Second hint: beween "a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide", says Wikipedia.)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Electricity is not a source of energy, but just a carrier..
$endgroup$
– L.Dutch♦
8 hours ago