[photophotoplasm]

> MIT's artificial leaf is ten times more efficient than the real thing

This doesn't surprise me, to be honest. Organisms have evolved to be fit enough to survive, and efficiency above a certain level might not affect an organisms fitness (or might even affect it negatively).

[VladRussian]

they didn't specify efficiency criteria.

Was it input solar energy to O2 output? to H2 output?

Was it input solar energy to electricity output - trees doesn't directly produce it, so what thermal efficiency coefficient they applied to calculate conversion, if it is the case?

...

[johnny22]

yes, if the plant sucks up too much power it might get too hot and lose too much of the often more scarce water.

or something like that anyways..

[erikpukinskis]

Photosynthesis stops above a certain temperature due to quantum effects anyway, so there's a natural governor. And I assume plants' vascular system also does some cooling.

[thehotdon]

Engineering beats evolution, every time.

[dools]

Except for baby formula vs. breast feeding!

[photophotoplasm]

Horses for courses, and all that.

[thehotdon]

Well, it's not just a difference in optimization goals; it's a difference in methodology.

Evolution optimizes by using heuristics and stochastic search--piling crap on top of crap, and obfuscating into oblivion.

Engineering optimizes by finding elegant mathematical solutions.

Sorry, getting off-topic. I guess I'm just bitter about not being a robot.

[wladimir]

Evolution "optimizes" for a lot more constraints. It needs to be self-healing, and work for a long time without any outside maintenance and monitoring. It collects its own energy, and competes with (unpredictable) other organisms for nutrients and sunlight.

Good luck engineering a system like that. Elegant mathematical solutions are great, but only exist for limited, well-defined problems.