So "not that different" translates to "less than half" by the time you finished the paragraph?

Did you miss the phrase "raw bulb efficiencies", or were you under the impression that streetlamps are raw bulbs and nothing more?

You're talking about PEPC uptake of bicarbonate and CO2 in soil moisture. It's only like 1-2%, and it's not "soil carbon", it's CO2 from the atmosphere dissolved in water. Same uptake whether the soil is humus-rich or bare sand.

How do you plan to handle achieving 1000W/m2 of lighting *before* losses?

I think realistically you'd need orbital mirrors for that.

Also, someone keeps stealing my water. I'll leave a glass of water out overnight, and the next time I check it, it's lower. I swear I'm not making it up, it's happened multiple times.

The funny thing is there's not that much difference in the raw bulb efficiencies - LPS is slightly lower, but not dramatically. But LPS have more fixture losses (the bulbs are omnidirectional), ballast losses, inefficient dimming (and only to slight degrees) for morning/evening, and so on. LED's high CRI (vs. LPS's virtually nonexistent CRI) can sometimes mean you can use less light, too. In practice, you can use something like 30-40% the electricity with LED streetlamps as with LPS, despite the raw bulb figures not being very different.

But no question that LED is much worse for astronomy. LPS was almost a pure spectral line, very easy to exclude. White LEDs use phosphors and deliver a broad spectrum white (apart from the source's blue peak). Pretty much the worst spectrum you could have apart from incandescent. : It kind of sucks that we have to use phosphors in the first place, as they're wasteful - but unfortunately, LEDs have a "green gap"; in the green spectrum, existing tech has a dramatic drop in output and efficiency (and corresponding increase in price) - while green is what our eyes see best. There's still ongoing work to fill it, but it's been a slog. If we could skip the phosphor and just have a mix of different coloured LEDs, the fixtures would be even more efficient, and it would be much easier for astronomers to filter (esp. if the frequencies were standardized)

that benefit will never happen

You know that arctic apples and innate potatoes both use the exact same PPO silencing tech, and have been on the market for years? Innate potatoes also contain less asparagine, the amino acid that turns into the carcinogen acrylamide when frying.

Do also remember that while these are "GMO", they're not transgenic. They simply have genes shut off - no new genes.

It is not "purely cosmetic in commercial situations". Bananas are one of the most wasted food products on the planet. You very much should care about reducing that. And bananas have largely been locked out of the ready-to-eat market by PPO-related browning because they turn to brown sludge unless you ruin their texture/flavour by treating them in citric/ascorbic acid or sulfur dioxide.

And once again, this has nothing to do with whether the bananas are old or not. Browning is an entirely different process than ripening. PPO vs. ethylene. Entirely different physiological responses. Get rid of PPO, and it still continues the normal aging process - pectin methylesterases and cellulases still break down the cell walls, amylase still converts starches to sugars (which then slowly ferment if given enough time), etc. No impact to normal aging. The impact is to rapid spoilage after peeling.

I mean, apples do last longer than most other produce?

(Though winter squash, it's hard to beat them!)

Once again, for the love of God, read and understand the article: this is NOT ABOUT WHETHER THE BANANAS ARE OLD OR NOT. It's NOT ABOUT WHETHER THEY'RE RIPE OR NOT. It's about THE BROWNING THAT HAPPENS WITHIN HOURS OF YOU REMOVING THE PEEL. Caused by an enzyme in bananas that is generally harmful to the human diet anyway (degrades vitamin C and polyphenols and reduces protein digestibility).

Just did. It also has no clue what the hell you're talking about. So how about instead of saying "Ask an AI" what YOU meant, how about you actually tell me, the person with a BA in horticulture, what the hell you think you're actually talking about?

Yeah, no question about that as well :(

Well... I mean, have you looked at Mistral models on a Pareto frontier graph? Or even just a benchmark graph?

It's like they're living in a different era.

This isn't about homes, their focus is on commercial buyers, who want to e.g. include bananas in fruit salads and whatnot.

Man, you must be... at least mid-70s? Even my parents are too young, and I feel old ;)

Anyway, congrats on living this long, and I hope you have many more good years ahead of you :)

(And yes there are, you can order them from rare fruit growers, if you're willing to shell out for it ;) )

I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about. Are you maybe talking about PEPC binding of bicarbonate and dissolved CO2? That's a replenishing / balancing pathway for the citric acid cycle to make up for the plant robbing from it when it sequesters nitrogen (and to restore pH). It contributes at best 1-2% of the plant's carbon, and that's only if nitrogen uptake is very heavy. And bicarbonate and CO2 (they form an equilibrium) are not "soil carbon"; they're not part of the soil, they're just gas dissolved in soil moisture; the same applies equally whether the plant were grown in rich fertile humus or totally inert sterile perlite. Humus is inert and decay-resistant (that's why it persists).

A couple other guesses as to what you mean. Scavenging of free amino acids from decaying matter? Plants do that to capture nitrogen. Any carbon captured inadvertently in the process is completely irrelevant in scale. They can also pick up very tiny amounts of sugars - not physiologically relevant.

Or are you saying that soil matter rots, CO2 returns to the air, and then plants "breathe" it in? I mean, it's... technically true? But it's still atmospheric CO2 at that point, in an atmosphere shared with all life.

If not, I'm baffled. Maybe you're confusing "corn is a heavy feeder" with thinking that means carbon? (that's about fertilizer). Or perhaps you're confusing how effective corn is at capturing carbon and depositing it in soil with thinking that that's coming from the soil? I'm just guessing here.