
Bioluminescent trees as an alternative to electric lighting - brahadeesh
http://blog.suny.edu/2014/03/future-cities-lit-by-beautiful-bioluminescent-trees/
======
devindotcom
The processes involved are orders of magnitude below the scale needed to
produce usable light. And in the plants it's been tested in, it's also fatal
after a short time. These aren't trivial problems, and they're not going to be
solved by a designer photoshopping a concept.

~~~
teekert
Exactly, I once did the calculation, they use the protein luciferase, which
requires 1 molecule of Lucferin and 1 molecule of ATP per photon produced!
That means if you were to produce say 200 lm (about the output of a 40W
incandescent light bulb) you'd need kilo's of ATP and Luciferin a week. Don't
expect useful light.

~~~
Dylan16807
Only kilos? Compared to bamboo that actually sounds feasible.

~~~
DrJosiah
(warning: I am not a biologist)

The problem is that generating ATP requires sun or sugar in plants (depending
on the specific metabolic process involved), and that the total amount of
sugar produced during the day as part of photosynthesis is tiny relative to
the amount of ATP necessary to fuel the light at night.

Consider that humans burn 100-150 kilos of ATP daily (according to Wikipedia).
This is only possible because we are recycling ATP continuously, fueling the
recycling process with sugar and oxygen that we consume at rates several
orders of magnitude higher than what a 20 year old tree could produce in the
same period _.

_ I can't find numbers for peak _sugar_ production in plants, but considering
how many maple trees it takes to make a single small container of maple syrup,
I think this is a reasonable statement to make for now. I will stand corrected
if someone has good numbers. :)

~~~
Dylan16807
Well apparently a tree can permanently sequester "up to 48 pounds" of carbon
per year (numbers are unclear, some mix up carbon and CO2, bamboo is more, but
it makes a good ballpark max). Let's assume a tree that glows instead of
growing for simplicity. 48 pounds, times 30/6 to get the number of ATP
produced per carbon atom, times 507/12 to account for how much heavier ATP is
than carbon, comes out to 12.6 kilograms of recycled ATP per day.

~~~
DrJosiah
One order of magnitude, I stand corrected :)

------
Terr_
This over-hyped crap _again_? Humbug!

Call me when someone solves the _REAL_ problem, which is the energy budget
needed to make the amount of light people actually want.

That'll probably involve some way to shunt externally-generated electrical
power into the tree.

~~~
brahadeesh
They way I see it, it's not going to completely replace street lighting. It's
going to supplement available light, thus reducing our energy consumption
among other benefits like producing oxygen. I'm especially excited about the
possibility of genetically modifying trees that produce edible stuff to have
bio luminescence, that'd be pretty cool.

------
vitd
Serious question - what happens in fall when the leaves fall off the trees?
Also, with a simple light bulb, or even lamp post, it can be replaced quickly
and cheaply. (OK, maybe not cheaply for the whole lamp post, but relatively
easily.) But planting a tree takes years for the tree to grow. This doesn't
seem realistic to me, though it does seem really cool.

Also, how much light do they give off? All of the images on the post are
computer generated. I'd like to see a photo of this actually working.

~~~
nine_k
This probably should not completely replace street lamps, but could help
better light some areas that are naturally dark and shady. Trees, instead of
concealing the streetlights, would give off some light.

Consider evergreen grasses that could probably be made to glow, too. Such
grass could nicely light up park lanes at night. Slightly glowing evergreen
bushes growing along a walkway could help one walk at night.

Also, consider how helpful such a natural illumination would be during a power
outage, especially when it happens due to a natural disaster. The light might
be faint, but it will help people orient themselves, help rescue helicopters
recognize the terrain, etc.

------
yohann305
I remember backing a kickstarter project back in 2013 which accomplished the
same thing on a small plant. As of today, it barely emits enough light and
it's all but ready for production. Check it out:
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-
pla...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-
natural-lighting-with-no-electricit)

~~~
toomuchtodo
I too backed this project! Disappointed by the output, but still happy to see
it reach production.

------
bglazer
That's a super cool idea.

I do wonder about unintended consequences. Invasive glowing trees might wreak
havoc on ecosystems, especially on tree dwelling nocturnal creatures. At least
they'd be easy to spot :)

~~~
JDLongley
Its highly unlikely that these plants would ever succeed as an invasive
species because the energy consumption required to glow puts the plant at a
massive disadvantage. I ordered something similar from a kickstarter a few
months ago:

[http://www.glowingplant.com/](http://www.glowingplant.com/)

They say that within a couple generations, the glowing feature quickly
disappears due to natural selection.

~~~
lentil_soup
Actually quite a few scientists tried to stop that kickstarter because of the
dangers it could prove to the ecosystem:

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-
north/2013/jun/0...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-
north/2013/jun/06/kickstarter-money-glow-in-the-dark-plants)

~~~
Dylan16807
That article seems mostly seems worried about future projects. And I'm not
sure what scientists you're talking about. Is it this line:

> 116 organizations have called for a moratorium on any release of synthetic
> organisms. The UN convention on Biological Diversity has urged countries to
> exercise precaution in any release of synthetic organisms to the
> environment.

Well if I click on the link I find a very interesting sentence:

> With synthetic biology, instead of swapping existing genes from one species
> to another (as in “ traditional” genetic engineering), scientists can write
> entirely new genetic code on a computer, "print" it out and then insert it
> into living organisms — or even try to create life from scratch.

Swapping a couple genes from one species to another sounds _exactly_ like what
they typically do to make a species glow.

And yet after that sentence they seem to change their definition of synthetic
biology to include both those categories.

It tastes like doublespeak to me. "Companies are doing not just X but Y! Ban
Y! (also we defined Y to include X)"

~~~
titanomachy
"Synthetic biology" in technical usage refers to custom sequences which are
written on a computer then chemically assembled _ex vivo_. This is a widely
used technique. It is distinct from the technique of extracting and amplifying
a sequence from one organism and inserting it into another, although the
results produced can be similar.

Source: I work in a molecular biology lab.

~~~
Dylan16807
So let's say there's a gene that might be useful to me. I have a listing of
base pairs, but it would be very expensive to extract DNA/RNA from actual
specimens. I chemically assemble an exact recreation and inject it. Is this
synthetic biology?

~~~
titanomachy
Yep! Although the result might be the same, the technique used is synthetic
biology. Usually the synthetic route is more expensive but a lot simpler.

------
sycren
Similar work to the 2010 Cambridge University student iGEM team -
[http://2010.igem.org/Team:Cambridge](http://2010.igem.org/Team:Cambridge)

Here is their research for bioluminescent trees -
[http://2010.igem.org/Team:Cambridge/Tools/Lighting](http://2010.igem.org/Team:Cambridge/Tools/Lighting)

------
sosuke
This doesn't sound great, what about all the tree dwelling critters that would
be unable to hide or sleep?

~~~
nine_k
They could sleep on another tree.

~~~
sosuke
Indeed, I did incorrectly assume this could/would be in all the trees on the
street.

~~~
sologoub
I think it depends on city density. Many streets in SF have about as many
trees as light poles, so you'd probably have to replace all those with the
glowing ones to make enough light.

------
nathan_long
How much energy would a tree expend producing light? Would that kill it? If
not, what extra input (in terms of nutrients, care, etc) would it need? Would
these trees cross-pollinate those not intended to glow? What environmental
impact might that have outside cities?

Lots of questions.

------
xg15
_So while we humans use a massive amount of generated electricity to defeat
darkness, Jellyfish create their own light deep underwater without solar
panels, wind turbines, or hydroelectric dams. Instead, the organism generates
power completely autonomously._

They don't need energy, they just generate it autonomously. Why didn't we
think of this earlier? The logic is flawless!

------
dmritard96
Maybe I follow YC stuff too much but it seems this be an attempt to build
momentum for the YC company working on this?
[http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/11/glowing-plant-is-one-of-
y-c...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/11/glowing-plant-is-one-of-y-
combinators-very-first-biotech-startups/)

~~~
brahadeesh
I'm not working for that startup or any startup for that matter.

------
jszymborski
There are a lot of problems with this that have been outlined in all these
comments, and 99% are true.

I would instead take advantages of photoautrophic organisms that already are
bioluminescent like Dinoflagellate.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinoflagellate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinoflagellate)

They can have a startling effect in large numbers and feed themselves with
daylight.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence#mediaviewer/Fi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence#mediaviewer/File:Bioluminescent_dinoflagellates_2.jpg)

Some video of their effect

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSROHwGaLCg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSROHwGaLCg)

~~~
fineline
I saw this effect off the beach near me a few weeks ago, it was quite
captivating as the breakers were lit up as if by an underwater neon (I
actually thought it was an artificial light show of some kind at first). But
although deeply impressive, it certainly wouldn't have had a meaningful effect
on visibility of the neighbouring land. Moonlight is much more effective.

------
NoMoreNicksLeft
Why not leave the night sky dark? It's like we have this 30,000 year old
phobia that we can't ditch... there are no more tigers lurking in the
darkness.

~~~
logfromblammo
Even if there were, wouldn't a more elegant solution be to engineer glowing
tigers?

...perhaps not.

~~~
mkstowegnv
William Blake would probably agree
[http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/172943](http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/172943)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyger)

------
codemonkeymike
I heard on NPR they are trying to bring back the American Chestnut, which is
being killed by a fungus from Asia. To be able to plant this genetically
modified tree outside of test beds will take 5-10 years in just regulation
issues alone. So even if they made this bioluminecent tree tomorrow (Which in
itself is impossible) we wouldn't see these on the side of the rode for
another 10+ years.

------
mjt0229
Luciferin isn't what makes jellyfish glow, that's GFP. GFP, at least, requires
a specific light input to cause the glow (UV at a particular wavelength
depending on the molecule). I don't know about Luciferin, though.

~~~
sampo
Luciferin is what makes fireflys glow. Luciferin really produces light from
chemical energy. GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) is just fluorescent, not
luminescent.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luciferin)

------
mnemonicsloth
Turning off the lights takes a chainsaw and ten minutes of labor per light.
Turning them back on again takes transplantable saplings and a 20 year wait.
Some ideas get less elegant the longer you look at them.

------
WhitneyLand
FAQ on a similar glowing plant effort:
[http://bioglowtech.com/FAQ.html](http://bioglowtech.com/FAQ.html)

------
grondilu
it seems to me that if this can be pulled off, it would be Nobel worthy. I
mean, it would not be less cool than a blue LED, would it?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
LEDs are vastly brighter than bioluminescence. And engineered bioluminescence
isn't actually new. It's one of the easiest things to engineer, and it's one
of the first things the gene tech people did when they started playing with
this stuff.

This 'designer/architect' seems more like a self-promoter.

There's an entire class of 'designers' who see themselves as gifted idea
people, but in fact they lack the scientific literacy to realise why some
ideas aren't good engineering.

Real designers do clever stuff that works in reality, not just as a concept in
an illustration.

While I'm all for high quality bioengineering as a future trend, I suspect
it's quite a bit harder to replace current technology with it than this
'designer' thinks.

