>100% efficient energy systems don't exi-
>solar energy
but the sun is lava
its volcanic energy
>>9017522
>plants capture 100 percent of the sun's energy
>plants capture even 100 percent of the energy that hits them
Yeah, I guess plants are all incredibly cold because none of that energy becomes heat or anything.
>>9017522
>plants radiate some sunlight as heat
>100%efficient
Gtfo
>>9017529
No, but they convert 100% of the sun's energy that they do capture into useful energy.
>>9017522
black holes and hawking radiation is (if not a perfect) very close to a 1:1 matter to energy conversion
>>9017522
Plant photosynthesis is actually horrifically inefficient. Like a whopping 3% to 6% efficient.
if I post a picture of a car with
>100% efficient energy systems don't exi-
will I get more miles/gallon?
>>9017522
Conversion efficiency of photonic to chemical energy for plants is about 3 to 6%:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
Also known as absolutely crap
>>9017580
"60% of the time it works every time" - OP
>>9017807
so its 100% of 3-6% of 45%, op isn't wrong
>>9017807
Someone is getting a ban
>>9017807
Now let's try this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock
>>9017599
How do we know that? Theoretical physics?
>>9017580
>it works when it works
I mean, it's hard to refute that
>>9017580
What is
>photorespiration
>ROS production under stressful conditions
>photoinhibition
This is a B8 thread.
Anyway, to all the faghost lile OP, remember that in a non quantum level, there are NO perfect 100% efficient systems, not even in theory and MUCH LESS if it's a thermodynamic or chemical cycle.
>>9017580
>Plants usually convert light into chemical energy with a photosynthetic efficiency of 3–6%.[33]
>>9021359
Remember people, don't be a faghost.