back
38 comments
> Because these algae are photosynthetic ... "We’re storing carbon while we’re producing light"

The circle of light! Perpetual illumination! Let the algae do photosynthesis using their own light output as energy!

What's happening, chemically? Let's see ... it's luciferin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Luciferin_Light_Emission_... Isn't that CO2 being emitted on the right, there?

I think they mean the algae is in sunlight during the day and growing, producing light only at night.
Could be. So over the mentioned four weeks, the algae is reproducing more cells in sunlight, and emitting light at night, while gradually wearing out in some way and "retaining 75% of their brightness". Then at the end of the month you have a bucket of tired algae, and that's the stored carbon. I don't know what you do with it. You probably shouldn't chuck it in a river. Its likely fate is methane, wherever you put it.
That sounds kinda like carbon capture, but decentralized to these light nodes
It seems to me that it has the same problem as carbon capture, which is how to make the result inert, or which deep hole to pump it into. Two people apparently silently disagreed with this, I wonder what was bothering them?
Unlike artificial carbon capture, natural carbon capture like algae here become insect/worm/bird feed or manure/coal.
“Hello, I’m from the algae company. I came to replace your tired algae with a fresh one.”
if the output is consistent, could be used for producing biofuel or plastic.
I hope this works. A decade ago I submitted glowing microbes to the epa but they blocked it. My read from going through that was that it was politically impossible. Hopefully times have changed.

Edit: my microbes were gmo, these are not, so no epa rules. Good luck to them!

What are the politics of glowing microbes?
I've heard it's a cultural problem, too sterile.
did you keep a few of your gmo cultures?
This feels like weird framing. They still need energy to produce it.

I have a genetically engineered luminescent petunia plant. It’s neat, but a ways off from being useful for anything.

Wow.. this is maybe the plant for anyone interested: https://light.bio/
That's the one, yeah.
Mushrooms too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalotus_nidiformis
Super strange framing.

The plant still need solar energy. They still need electricity within the tissues of the organism to survive (ATP and krebs cycle). Humans have always burned organic matter for light.

Not trying to be a pedant but "Light without electricity" falls down when examined from any angle. It's not a serious claim.

Why all the bother with 3d-printed gel shapes? Why not just use a mat of these things, all glowing, and then put it behind an LCD panel. Then you can have moving pictures without all the bother of 3d printing.

Then you can take the next step and both their apparent output further by replacing the algae with tiny blue LED modules.

I think it's fine for research, curiosity, aesthetic and coolness factor. Not everything need to be 'practical'.
I remember old watches that used to have some phosphors dots on the 4 main quarters in a hand watch to see time in the dark, while as kids we would take a to bed a rosary with glow-in-the-dark marbles to emit light from the phosphors inside.That would last for 30 minutes or more.
Modern LED lights really draw no power at all in the grand scheme of things
They’re pretty incredible, 200+ lumens per watt for LED lighting vs 16 lumens per watt for incandescent, 12.5x more efficient. Commercial LED fixtures have rated lifetimes of 50,000+ hours.
The residual problem as ever being the rebound effect, AKA Jevons paradox. Let's hope that humans find a way not to want everything 12.5x brighter.
The pain experienced by looking at bright source of light seems to be fairly effective?
It's less that individual light fixtures or applications become brighter than that more things are lit.

Outdoor lighting 30 years ago used to be limited to, say, a porch light and perhaps a few motion-sensor floodlights near a garage or driveway, and those only on a handful of houses within a neighbourhood.

Today it seems that the majority of homes in many locations have persistent outdoor lighting, whether along paths, gardens, or building peripheries. Holiday lighting is far more prevalent, and not strictly limited to Christmas and Halloween. I'd seen Easter lighting exhibits in recent years, as well as adverts for firms offering holiday lighting services.

And that's just residences. Illuminated billboards, industrial lighting, street lighting, etc., are all both more prevalent and brighter than a few decades ago. A friend is on a campaign against a local business whose bright lights shine directly into their house all night.

I guess it's unlikely to be 12x, but people probably do consume more light, by way of being less worried about switching them off.
Have you seen modern car headlights?
I try not to, on account of the pain.
Interiors are trending brighter with LED lighting, but it's not exactly a 10x multiplier.
Yes but LED lights need to be connected to some electricity source, which is inconvenient in some scenarios.
So can torches and candles.
The sun?
It rather resembles the CGI protomolecule from 'The Expanse'.
It is also relevant to something from the last three books, which haven't made it onto TV yet.
good for car dashboards, maybe for not vital areas
Good? You would need the dashboard climate controlled all the time otherwise the algae gets sterilised in the sun. On the other hand, if you park underground all day, must provide light otherwise it dies. Either way it will eat your battery in no time.

Such an idea might be a good startup pitch for gullible investors but won't survive clash with reality.

I don’t want algae on my vital areas
Technically [nerd emoji] nothing is possible without electricity

(No I don’t go to any parties)